FYI --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 27 Jul 2002, at 1:10, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: PAR 246 Revisionists: Wansbrough The implications of, and opposition to, the methods and theories of John Wansbrough Method & Theory in the Study of Religion 9.1 (1997) by Herbert Berg 1. Introduction It has been two decades since John Wansbrough published his Quranic Studies: Sources and Methods of Scriptural Interpretation. This work and his Sectarian Milieu: Content and Composition of Islamic Salvation History, published a year later in 1978 are, arguably, the two most significant contributions made to the study of Islamic origins since Ignaz Goldziher and Joseph Schacht. The former argued that the Sunna, the words and deeds of Muhammad as preserved in authentic hadiths (reports or traditions about Muhammad), was more valuable as a historical source for the theological and legal debates of the early centuries of Islam than as a source for the life of Muhammad and the early Muslim community (Goldziher 1971: 19). The latter, looking specifically at the history of the development of Muslim jurisprudence which is primarily based on the information found in hadiths with complete and proper chains of authorities (isnads) guaranteeing authenticity concluded that "[t]he more perfect the isnad, the later the tradition." (Schacht 1949: 147) Together, Goldziher and Schacht dissociated the Sunna from Muhammad; Wansbrough has gone much farther; he has severed both the Qur'an and the Sira (the biography of the Prophet) from the figure Muhammad and even from Arabia. Since the works of Goldziher and Schacht met (and still continue to meet) with stiff opposition both from Muslim and non-Muslim scholars, it is hardly surprising that Wansbrough's methods and theories have come under an even stronger and more vehement attack. This reaction is due in part, no doubt, to the larger scope and religiously and historically more critical foci of his studies. Muslim scholars have always admitted the possibility that at least some hadiths were fabricated. They have developed a whole science of scrutinizing the transmitters found in isnads and thereby determined the authenticity of the hadiths. According to Muslim scholars Goldziher, Schacht, and others of their "ilk" have simply been negligent in their reading of the texts (e.g., Azami 1992). Wansbrough's work cuts the very bases of Islam, the Qur'an, and the Prophet, and so he cannot be dismissed as merely negligent. This is not a particularly unexpected reaction; that the reaction of non-Muslim Islamicists has been, for the most part, no more receptive is. If the source of the latter's hostility was simply that of scholars being conservative and loathe to sacrifice their familiar ideas, it would hardly be noteworthy for the study of religion. In time, the subsequent generations of Islamicists would be more willing to consider and employ a new paradigm. However, the problem is much more insidious: the debate, at least in veiled form, revolves around the questions of what are "sources" and what is "history"? 2. Approaches to early Muslim texts Methodological questions are not often broached in the study of Islam. The method employed by Muslim scholars is essentially one of ascription. That is to say, the extant body of literature that began to emerge at the end of the second and beginning of the third century of Islam is held to transmit faithfully the earlier events, including (and particularly) those of Muhammad's life. Western scholars have brought to this material source critical methods, which, in the context of Islamic origins, often involves the analysis of the isnads attached to the material (as if each isnad represents an independent recension). Their results confidently depict "what really happened". Nevertheless, the Qur'an and Sira, and even largely the Sunna, are treated by Western scholars in a manner not significantly different from that of Muslim scholars and theologians. The Qur'an's purported chronology has been analyzed in terms of the Meccan (early) and Medinan (later) suras, though Western scholars have developed sub-categories (e.g., Nöldeke 19091926 and Bell 1953), which continue to be thought of as definitive (e.g., Neuwirth 1993 and Welch 1983, respectively). The meaning of a qur'anic word or passage is to be found in the classical qur'anic commentaries, most of which were produced at least three centuries after the fact. The biography of the Prophet is assumed to give a fairly reliable picture of Muhammad's life (e.g. Watt 1953; 1956). More scepticism is evident when working with the Sunna because of the doubts raised by Goldziher and Schacht, but not much more: even if one cannot be sure if any one hadith is authentic, as a whole they converge to produce a fairly accurate picture of what Muhammad said and did (Juynboll 1983: 6). The net result of all this scholarly activity has been to produce an account of Islamic origins which scarcely differs from that constructed by Muslims. Like Wansbrough, I would not want to suggest that this "impressive unanimity in their assent to the historical `fact'" is the product of collusion (1987: 9), at least not at a conscious level. Rather, what we have is a case of a shared epistemological framework and methodology producing largely similar results. This situation, in itself, would not be problematic but for the presence of two factors. First, as Wansbrough notes, "[b]ereft of archaeological witness and hardly attested in pre-Islamic Arabic or external sources, the seventh-century Hijaz owes its historiographical existence almost entirely to the creative endeavour of Muslim and Orientalist scholarship." (1987: 9) That is to say, all Islamicists acknowledge that all the information we have about the first two centuries of Islam comes from compilations and writings whose present recensions date from little earlier than the third Islamic century (i.e., 800 C.E.). Many Islamicists recognize the implications of this lacuna in the extant sources, but attempt to circumvent it by placing their faith in the general veracity of the claims of the later sources to preserve earlier ones in a reasonably reliable manner. Although the later works might have "tendentially shaped" the earlier material, it is maintained that the kernel of "what really happened" is retained and can be discovered by carefully sifting through the material (e.g., Watt 1953: xiiixiv). This type of argument is at least plausible and, in the absence of any other reason to doubt the claims of accurate transmission of originary "facts" by the extant literature, perhaps even probable. However, there is a second factor, an extremely critical one, to which Wansbrough draws attention: the Qur'an, its commentaries (tafsir), the biographies of the Prophet, and the Sunna all early Muslim literature are sacred, or salvation history. In other words, it is not history, not even tendentially-shaped history. "What really happened" might possibly be congruent with what they say, but all we have is what the Muslim community of two centuries later in the continuing process of self-definition "thought had happened or wanted to believe had happened or wanted others to believe had happened." (KorenNevo 1991: 89) This distinction is one that seems to be lost on the opponents of Wansbrough. But if one recognizes it as a valid distinction, then methodological implications are simple, but enormous. If "what we know of the seventh-century Hijaz is the product of intense literary activity, then that record has got to be interpreted in accordance with what we know of literary criticism." (Wansbrough 1987: 1415) Salvation history, even in the guise of "scientific" history, is literature. The methods most appropriate for its analysis are form criticism, redaction criticism, and literary criticism, just as they have been in the study of early Christianity and Judaism as pioneered by Rudolf Bultmann and Jacob Neusner. Wansbrough is opposed "to that school of sanguine historiography in which the pursuit of reconstruction is seldom if ever deflected by the doubts and scruples thrown up in recent (and not so recent) years by practitioners of form-criticism, structuralism and the like." (1980: 361) Why Islamicists have, however, shied away from such methods is a question to which I shall return. 3. A summary Wansbrough's theories and their implications Although literary methodological issues are paramount for Wansbrough, they are intimately connected to his theories on Islamic origins. "Wansbrough, after all, is also a historian: ... his extensive exercises in literary criticism are part of an effort to tell the history of a community. His objections are to the arbitrarily privileged position of `reality', the tyranny of some narrative structures, the eschewal of interpretative versatility, and a lack of methodological and literary self-consciousness." (Calder 1994: 40) It is as an historian that he has gained his notoriety, for from this application of literary analysis to the texts of early Islam emerges a radically new model for Islamic origins. Both Wansbrough's analysis and model were first introduced in his Quranic Studies. Its main concern is the development of qur'anic exegesis. By way of introduction, however, Wansbrough provides three chapters entitled "Revelation and Canon," "Emblems of Prophethood," and "Origins of Classical Arabic" which explore the development of the scripture, prophetology, and sacred language in early Islam. In the first chapter (1977: 152) Wansbrough demonstrates that the themes of retribution, sign, exile, and covenant compose a major portion of the qur'anic message. The literary forms of these themes are apodictic formulae, supplicatory formulae, and narrative. Wansbrough suggests that "taken together, the quantity of reference, the mechanically repetitious employment of rhetorical convention, and the stridently polemical style, all suggest a strongly sectarian atmosphere, in which a corpus of familiar scripture was being pressed into service of as yet unfamiliar doctrine." (1977: 20) These features, along with the Qur'an's referential nature, place the Muslim scripture in the literary tradition of Christian and Hebrew scriptures, though it is clearly neither a calque nor reformulation of them. As for the origin of the material in the Qur'an, factors such as the composite (and often contradictory) nature of the Qur'an, the incidental role of the Qur'an in the formulation of Muslim jurisprudence, the absence of reference to the Qur'an in an early Muslim creed from the middle of the eighth century, and the lack of masoretic exegesis before the ninth century, suggest the prophetic logia underwent a significant period of organic growth and oral transmission before they were codified. Certainly these factors belie the tradition of the systematic collection and canonization of the Qur'an in the first decade(s) after the death of Muhammad. Wansbrough's chapter on Islamic prophetology (1977: 5284) focuses on both the qur'anic material and the biographical material (what he calls the Muhammadan evangelium). The historical value of the Qur'an is not as a source of biographical details, but "as a source for the concepts eventually applied to the composition of the Muslim theology of prophethood." (1977: 56) In fact, it was the earliest exegesis that was responsible for linking the anonymous qur'anic material (the prophetic logia) to the figure of the independent Arabian prophet; this early exegesis produced the biography of Muhammad. The logia's contribution to this process was to give the Arabian Prophet a distinctly Mosaic character while the evangelium placed the logia in the Hijaz (the Western region of Arabia containing the cities of Mecca and Medina). Wansbrough examines the development of the Islamic lingua sacra in his third chapter (1977: 85118) and argues that it is wrong to see classical Arabic as standing at the beginning instead of the end of a "long and varied linguistic evolution" (1977: 87). Classical Arabic is traditionally thought of as being embodied within the Qur'an and pre-Islamic [sic] poetry, and therefore it must be assumed that this Arabic served not only as the lingua sacra, but also as a Bedouin lingua franca in Arabia and that it is the (hypothetical) source of modern sedentary vernaculars. Wansbrough suggests an alternative: the process of Arabicization closely followed the Arab conquests. To suggest otherwise would mean to assent to a period of from 150 to 200 years between textual stabilization of the Qur'an and analysis of its contents in the formulation of Arabic grammar. The implication must be that the text of scripture, like those of pre-Islamic poetry, was faithfully transmitted and intelligently understood read/recited and heard for a very long time indeed, without once provoking the questions about its meaning and its form with which the literature of the third/ninth century is filled. (1977: 101) This is particularly odd, since the Qur'an seems not infrequently anomalous with the rules of classical Arabic grammar. In the fourth and main chapter of Quranic Studies (1977: 199246), Wansbrough demonstrates that on the basis of function and style it is possible to distinguish between five types of qur'anic exegesis (tafsir). The first, haggadic exegesis (narrative) is typified by the use of prophetic tradition, identification, and anecdote. The second, halakhic (legal) exegesis uses analogy, abrogation, and circumstance of revelation (though narrative often is used to provide a chronological framework for apparently contradictory qur'anic passages). The third, masoretic exegesis employs the variant reading of the Qur'an, poetic exemplifications, and lexical and grammatical explanations. The fourth and fifth are rhetorical and allegorical exegesis. The final type was particularly popular in sectarian movements. Moreover, these types of exegesis emerged chronologically in the order specified, and so allow at least the relative dating of texts and an alternative to dating texts by ascription. For example, the lack of references to the Qur'an and of other indications of a stable scriptural text in halakhic arguments suggests that the establishment of the Qur'an as a source of law antedated and contributed to the canonization of a ne varietur text, rather than the other way around (1977: 202). That the Qur'an could not have been canonized much before the emergence of masoretic exegesis is further supported by the characteristically masoretic practice of explicating the whole of the Qur'an in its proper order (1977: 226). (See Andrew Rippin's article in this issue for a detailed discussion of this chapter of Wansbrough's work.) The theories which emerge from this analysis are, in Wansbrough's own words, "conjectural" (1977: xi), "provisional" (1977: ix), and "tentative and emphatically provisional" (1978: x). Nevertheless, the implications are enormous: neither the Qur'an nor Islam is a product of Muhammad or even of Arabia. During the early Arab expansion beyond Arabia, there is no evidence that the conquerors were Muslim. Almost 200 years later "early" Muslim literature began to be written by the Mesopotamian clerical elite. The implication may be that the hitherto secular polity discovered and adopted a new movement which, though a non-Jewish, non-Christian movement, was a product of a Judaeo-Christian sectarian milieu. This movement and its history were soon Arabicized. The Qur'an, however, took somewhat longer to be canonized not until circa 800 C.E. This process has been (tentatively) described as the attribution of several, partially overlapping, collections of logia (exhibiting a distinctly Mosaic imprint) to the image of a biblical prophet (modified by the material of the Muhammadan evangelium into an Arabian man of God) with a traditional message of salvation (modified by the influence of Rabbinic Judaism into the unmediated and finally immutable word of God). The process was accompanied by a grammatical effort `to relate the anomalies of the lingua sacra to the demands of a normative description of language'. (Mallat 1994: 166) In The Sectarian Milieu, Wansbrough continues his literary analysis by examining the subjects of historiography, authority, identity, and epistemology in early Islamic literature. In the first chapter he focuses primarily on the early haggadic exegesis, the biography of Muhammad, and argues that it is not history but salvation history. Its narrative techniques are: exegetical, in which serial or isolated qur'anic extracts provide the framework for a longer narrative; parabolic, in which the narrative itself is the source for frequent allusion to logia (not verbatim, but in terms of diction and imagery); and paraphrastic, in which logia are presented in the form of anecdotes replete with scriptural key- words. In this way, salvation history was produced. Wansbrough sees some twenty-three topoi in this literature, all of which derive from a Judaeo-Christian sectarian milieu. In his chapter on authority, he argues that Islamic salvation history invests the word of Allah, that is, the revelations to Muhammad, with authority. On the other hand, the Sunna, a completely separate body of early Muslim literature, places authority in the paradigmatic conduct of the Prophet. By placing all ritual and legal commands in the mouth of Muhammad, this latter literature became the main source for Islamic law. (Of course, considerable effort was expended on elaborating and harmonizing these originally disparate scriptural and apostolic forms of authority.) In the following chapter, Wansbrough examines Islam's quest for identity and self-definition and highlights the polemical nature of this quest which is so characteristic of a sectarian movement. His final chapter explores the "role of that historically fixed theophany in the organization of communal and individual experience" (1978: 130). (Norman Calder's article in this issue expands upon and critiques some of Wansbrough's hypotheses in this regard.) These two monographs, as well as a few articles and book reviews, comprise the sum total of Wansbrough's publications in Islamic origins. In them, he has rewritten almost every "historical fact" of Islamic origins. He is, I would venture, less concerned with the accuracy or inaccuracy of the historical implications of his work than with its methodology; his opponents reverse the priorities. That is not to say that the two are unrelated for either Wansbrough or his opponents. Presumably, neither is so naive. For Wansbrough, his radical reinterpretation of Islamic origins is the outcome of what he considers the only proper approach to the extant texts. The approach is correct, his preliminary results may or may not be (though it is fairly clear that he thinks the historical conclusions he has drawn are largely correct). His opponents have focused on these conclusions because it is these that they find offensive. However, it seems that his methods are considerably less assailable. Certainly the concerted attack on the historical implications can be seen as a means by which to delegitimize his methods, but it is more likely that the relatively few and feeble attacks on his methods are attempts to delegitimize the implications thereof. 4. Opposition to Wansbrough The Islamicists who oppose Wansbrough do so rather vehemently, even questioning whether he and his allies merit the dignity of a collected set of essays on their ideas. Perhaps this attitude accounts for the paucity of articles and chapters, much less monographs, in which his opponents tackle the issues raised by Wansbrough. Their main arguments can only be gleaned from reviews of Quranic Studies and The Sectarian Milieu, and from passing remarks in publications devoted to other topics. Though worded in numerous ways, these arguments are surprisingly few in number (four) and are found in at least nascent form in the comments made by Fazlur Rahman. He also epitomizes the tendency to side-step serious discussion when he suggests that "[m]y disagreements with Wansbrough are so numerous that they are probably best understood only by reading both this book and his." (1989: xiv) Rahman sees in Wansbrough's theory of the origin of the qur'anic material in a Judaeo-Christian sectarian milieu evidence that he stands at the "logical end of the line for Jewish apologists" (1989: xiii). This line has its origin in the late-nineteenth century in works such as Was hat Mohammed aus dem Judenthume aufgenommen? (1902) by Abraham Geiger and Jüdische Elemente im Koran (1878) by Hartwig Hirschfeld. In his review of Quranic Studies R. B. Serjeant echoes this accusation, calling it "a thoroughly reactionary stand in reverting to the over-emphasis of the Hebrew element in Islam ... [and] one has the sense of a disguised polemic seeking to strip Islam and the Prophet of all but the minimum of originality." (1978: 76) Both Rahman and Serjeant use a thinly veiled ad hominem argument, but, because of the prevalence of the irenic approach to the study of Islam (see below), the argument seems to carry some weight. I do not believe this aspect of the argument merits refutation, except to say that it has no bearing on the validity of Wansbrough's methods and the veracity of his conclusions. (A more serious problem with this suggestion is its misunderstanding of the role of the sectarian milieu, a problem discussed in G. R. Hawting's article.) Rahman also states that "[t]he development [of the qur'anic teaching on miracles] is intelligible only in the context of a unified document gradually unfolding itself. It cannot be understood as a composite of different and contradictory elements." (1989: xiii) In other words, Muhammad's life is so intimately and obviously intertwined with the material of the Qur'an, that it must be genuinely connected to him; the Qur'an can only be understood if it is read with the life of the Prophet as the backdrop. A strong supporter of this view is Alford T. Welch. After dismissing Wansbrough's "radical hypothesis" as unconvincing because of the valid "historical memory" retained despite contradictory accounts, he states: A distinctive feature of the Qur'an that cannot be ignored if the Muslim scripture is to be understood fully is its close relationship to the life of Muhammad and his contemporaries. ... [T]he Qur'an is a historical document that reflects the prophetic career of Muhammad and responds constantly to the specific needs and problems of the emerging Muslim community. It abounds in references and allusions to historical events that occurred during the last twenty or so years of Muhammad's lifetime, a period during which it was itself a history making event. (Welch 1980: 626) For Welch, the Qur'an serves perhaps as the only reliable source for information about Muhammad and his understanding of himself and his mission (1983). This argument is couched in many other forms. Serjeant castigates Wansbrough for his neglect of "the vital Arabian element" in the Qur'an and "the plain and uncontested evidence ... that the Hijaz was its birthplace" (1978: 76). When Juynboll highlights "the obvious disparity in style and contents of Meccan and Medinan suras" (1979: 294) or when Burton (1995) adduces the "embarrassing" contradictions in the Qur'an, they too are suggesting that the geographical, cultural, religious, and political landscape influenced Muhammad. To illustrate the basis of this ubiquitous argument consider the following two examples. The story of Noah, which is adduced or alluded to several times in the Qur'an, is assumed to reflect Muhammad's life. The opposition faced by Noah, or for that matter, Abraham, Moses, and all the other qur'anic prophets is no different than that faced by Muhammad in the city of Mecca. These stories are thought to have been revealed/produced to encourage Muhammad or his followers and to warn his opponents that the messengers of Allah have always been opposed by their people and that Allah will mete out punishment soon enough. For the second example, consider the following "(auto)biographical" qur'anic passage. Your lord has not forsaken you, nor is your lord displeased with you. The hereafter will be better for you than the present. Your lord will give you [that which] will please you. Did he not find you an orphan and shelter you? Did he not find you straying and guide you? Did he not find you poor and enrich you? (Qur'an 93:38) How is this passage to be understood if not in reference to the period known as the fitra, which occurred after the first revelation and during which Muhammad was distressed because he received no further revelations? And, was not Muhammad an orphan? Was he not guided by Allah? And was he not destitute until the wealthy, Khadija married him? While this argument of Rahman, Welch, and many others is internally consistent, it seems a product of a superficial reading of Wansbrough. The argument assumes the epistemological and chronological priority of the events in Muhammad's life over the passages in the Qur'an. If, as Wansbrough suggests, the biography of the Muhammad is the product of a narrative exegesis of the prophetic logia, the priority should be reversed. If opposition to, and vindication of, the messengers were simply some of the many schemata and topoi associated with them, would not an exegetical account of the Arabian Prophet be constructed on similar lines? Thus, it is hardly surprising that the stories of Noah and Muhammad parallel each other. The qur'anic passage adduced above in and of itself contains nothing which requires perforce that it be read as addressed to Muhammad or any other particular individual. However, any haggadic commentator might find it convenient to draw upon this otherwise ambiguous passage. In so doing, the passage and the "history" corroborate each other: the former is "explained" and the biography receives a framework upon which to construct an Arabian Prophet's story. A passage historicized in this manner naturally appears (auto)biographical. The third major argument was first alluded to by Graham in his review of Quranic Studies (1980: 140) and rests on the assumption that Wansbrough's historical reconstruction of early Islam requires a massive conspiracy an inconceivable scenario to Rahman (1985: 201). This line of reasoning is more fully developed by Versteegh. Of Wansbrough he says: [O]ne needs a conspiratorial view of the Islamic tradition, in which all scholars are assumed to have taken part in the same conspiracy to suppress the real sequence of events . ... It may be true that sometimes an opinion becomes fashionable for religious, political or even social reasons, and is then taken over by most people. But the point here is that if one particular interpretation or point of view prevails, there are bound to be some dissenters and in important issues, such as the ones we are dealing with here, it is inconceivable that tradition could manage to suppress all dissenting views. (1993: 48) A conspiracy of the magnitude needed to account for Wansbrough's conclusions about the extended process of scriptural canonization and historicization and Arabicization of the prophetic logia does seem unlikely. If the choice were simply between historicity and conspiracy, the former would certainly seem more plausible. However, these are not the only two choices. Recourse to a conspiracy theory exhibits a rather simplistic understanding of how literature and particularly salvation history are produced. The authors of the texts of early Islam were all working in more or less the same cultural milieu. Their perceived unanimity on the "facts" of early Islam need not be the result of collusion to fabricate an Islam to their liking or which served their religious, political, or ethnic objectives. When the traditions of Islam began to be recorded around 800 C.E., it was done in a manner that the Muslims of that time believed, or needed to believe, that events had been. And in so doing, the beliefs became "facts". Wansbrough says "that historiography is primarily a form of literature, is a step seldom and then only very reluctantly taken in the field of Islamic Studies. ... [T]he language of a historical report is also the language of fiction. The difference between the two is a psychological assumption shared by writer and reader, and it is from that assumption that the historical report acquires significance, is deemed worthy of preservation and transmission" (1978: 118119). Hence, there are no "truths" that had to be suppressed in favour of "falsehoods". The version of the origins of Islam which has come to us is therefore the one which the later community "knew" to be the truth. However, a conspiracy there may be, but not as Rahman and Versteegh would envision it. "With neither artifact nor archive, the student of Islamic origins could quite easily become victim of a literary and linguistic conspiracy. He is, of course, mostly convinced that he is not. Reason for that must be confidence in his ability to extrapolate from the literary version(s) what is likely to have happened." (Wansbrough 1987: 10). These three preceding arguments have focused on Wansbrough's theories and not his methodology. The only challenge to the latter is that which questions the value of abandoning the "historical method" by which is meant "ascription" and turning to literary analysis. Rahman argues that the historical method works, and that "Wansbrough's methods of literary analysis ... are so inherently arbitrary that they sink into the marsh of utter subjectivity" (1985: 199). Serjeant also refers to "his untenable subjective theories" (1978: 77). While it seems doubtful whether Rahman or Serjeant are trying to offer a serious argument against Wansbrough on this point their statements are brief, polemic, and undeveloped this issue of subjectivity is not an unimportant one. Trying to avoid lapsing into an epistemological debate over "objectivity" and "subjectivity", I would simply point out that what Rahman and others seem to overlook is that the unquestioned apriorism of accepting the sources at face value is no less subjective. What we can be certain of is that a body of literature emerged circa 800 C.E. that purported to describe events some 150 years earlier. The subjectivity of these ninth-century authors cannot be transformed into objectivity merely by the passage of time. A more "objective" approach would clearly be to treat the literature as literature and not as an archeological site (born out of the perennial urge to turn literary convention into historical `reality') (Wansbrough 1987: 12, 22). 5. Factors contributing to opposition and hostility My purpose in attempting to refute these four arguments is not to champion the methods and conclusions of Wansbrough nor to imply they should not be challenged. In labelling his own work as experimental, Wansbrough invites such challenges. Rather it is to demonstrate that the main lines of these critical arguments tend to be based on either misconceptions of Wansbrough or on circular arguments. As such, they are not particularly compelling. Some scholars have, however, taken issue with Wansbrough on somewhat firmer grounds. For example, evidence suggesting the existence of a qur'anic canon prior to 800 C.E. is problematic. Newly discovered papyri with short fragments of the Qur'an from the late Umayyad period (which ended in 750 C.E.) and administrative letters and treatises from the same period are replete with qur'anic illusions and/or quotations. They may suggest that 800 C.E. as the date for the canonization of the Qur'an is somewhat late (Crone 1994: 18; Qadi 1992). Cook rightly points out that the sources we have, though they are relatively late, do not preclude that other texts were written which simply did not survive (1980: 181). However, these letters, treatises, and (hypothetical) texts need not be at odds with Wansbrough's theory. These early Qur'anic references might only suggest that some of the logia were in circulation and that they may even have had a measure of authority: it need not suggest the existence of a recognized canon. The logia would have had a long life prior to their final canonization. Thus, this evidence is not conclusive. And, other scholars have sought and discovered archeological, numismatic, and epigraphical evidence in support of Wansbrough (KorenNevo 1991: 100106). That Muslim scholars take offence at Wansbrough's work is to be expected. The more interesting question remains, why would non-Muslim scholars feel likewise? What is at stake for them? Surely the threat to faith is not the problem. Rippin has already suggested several factors which seem to contribute to the reluctance of Islamicists to accept Wansbrough methods and theories (1985). First, historians are in the business of determining what really happened and why it happened. Wansbrough has suggested that we may never know what has really happened, and "to historians the factor of ambiguity is not especially welcome." (1987: 15) Unfortunately, for the first two centuries of Islam, the required material is not extant. Without blind faith in the reliability of the Sira, for example, there is little for the scholar who wants to study the life of Muhammad in his early seventh century Arabian context to do or say. Second, Schacht, while assessing Islamic studies and the impact of his own work, said that Islamicists were characterized by an "intellectual laziness" which gradually undermined the progress made in the field. This happened first to Goldziher's work, then his own. Perhaps Wansbrough's work will also fall victim. This "intellectual laziness" manifests itself primarily in an unwillingness to be sceptical and methodologically and theoretically sophisticated. As Wansbrough observes: As a document [i.e., the Qur'an] susceptible of analysis by the instruments and techniques of Biblical criticism it is virtually unknown. The doctrinal obstacles that have traditionally impeded such investigation are, on the other hand, very well known. Not merely dogmas such as those defining scripture as the uncreated Word of God and acknowledging its formal and substantive inimitability, but also the entire corpus of Islamic historiography, by providing a more or less coherent and plausible report of the circumstances of the Quranic revelation, have discouraged examination of the document as representative of a traditional literary type. (1977: ix) It is much easier (and productive from a quantitative, not qualitative, perspective) simply to accept the literature at face value. Treated as reliable historical records, the methods and results are relatively straightforward. There is virtually no need to depend on literary theory and analysis, which only obscure as much as they reveal. (That is, Wansbrough's methods destroy the hitherto "historical facts" of Islamic origins without replacing them with new ones. For example, we used to "know" that Muhammad produced the Qur'an, perhaps with the help of some Jews and/or Christians, but we have no names for the individuals or communities which produced the logia). Third, Islamicists have become too narrowly focused. Competency in Arabic and familiarity with Arabia on the eve of Islam are considered the only requisite skills needed for a "proper" investigation of Islamic origins. "For the most part, there are few scholars active today who can move with equal agility throughout the entire Western religious framework and its necessary languages." (Rippin 1985: 159). Fourth, today's Islamicists seem on the whole very reluctant to say anything which might be interpreted as critical of Islam, including its own sacralized "origins" and "history". Prior to the publication of Quranic Studies, Charles Adams noted that "[i]n the years since World War II there has grown up a distinctive movement in the West, represented in both religious circles and the universities, whose purpose is the greater appreciation of Islamic religiousness and the fostering of a new attitude toward it." (1976: 38) The works of such scholars as Wilfred Cantwell Smith and W. Montgomery Watt exemplify this irenic approach to the study of Islam. The phenomenological approach to the study of Islam, though purportedly less theological in its intent, results in much the same attitude. It emphasizes the "experience of the believer" and, in the case of the study of Islam, has been seen as "the key to making restitution for the sins of unsympathetic, hostile, or interested approaches that have plagued the tradition of Western Orientalism." (Adams 1976: 50) Modern Islamicists are perhaps more inclined to adopt these approaches because a sense of collective guilt. That Islamicists have been culpable has been convincingly demonstrated by Edward Said (1978). The sins of our ancestors in the study of Muslim peoples has made modern Islamicists wary of committing the "sin of orientalism" and rightly so. However, if the result is a fear of asking and answering potentially embarrassing questions ones which might upset Muslim sensibilities this "restitution" is disturbing. The popularity of an anti-theoretical and sensitive approach in order to atone for or allay some perceived guilt is not exclusive to Islamicists. The work of early cultural anthropologists also contributed the colonial oppression of the people they studied. The response of many of today's anthropologists is described by Lawson and McCauley as "throw[ing] the scientific baby out with the colonialist bath water" (1993: 202). They argue that this strategy for reconceiving cultural anthropology as humanistic inquiry in the hermeneutic mode may buy sensitivity and moral rectitude, but at the cost of forfeiting its place among the sciences. What is missing is the recognition that the connection between scientific aspirations for anthropological research and collusion with imperialism is not a necessary one. (1993: 203204). Islamicists too have failed to recognize the nature of this connection. As a result, their scholarship remains narrowly focused and anti-theoretical, and, "in order to remain true to the `faith of other men,' is doomed most of all to avoid asking the basic question: How do we know?" (Rippin 1985: 159) 6. Conclusion Many non-Muslim scholars of Islamic origins continue to operate in a Muslim theological framework for the reasons outlined above. But in so doing, they risk forfeiting their status as scholars. Bruce Lincoln, speaking of the study of religion generally, suggests: When one permits those whom one studies to define the terms in which they will be understood, suspends one's interest in the temporal and contingent, or fails to distinguish between "truths", "truth-claims", and "regimes of truth", one has ceased to function as historian or scholar. In that moment, a variety of roles are available: some perfectly respectable (amanuensis, collector, friend and advocate), and some less appealing (cheerleader, voyeur, retailer of import goods). None, however should be confused with scholarship. (Lincoln 1996: 227) Wansbrough's greatest contribution to Islamic origins may be his summons for Islamicists to return to scholarship. While my counter-arguments have not necessarily refuted objections raised by the opponents of Wansbrough, they do demonstrate that these objections are far from convincing. Wansbrough's experiment is not yet complete, but the initial results are certainly positive. Whether Wansbrough has initiated a paradigm shift in the study of Islamic origins and provided "an outline of future studies in Islam, the directions in which they should go" (Rippin 1981: 166) remains to be seen. But no longer can it be said that Wansbrough's "implication[s] and logic are his alone" (Juynboll 1979: 294). Back to Schedule Last modified on January 22, 2001 by "mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]"}Herbert Berg ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/XISQkA/lOaOAA/yQLSAA/uTGrlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Post message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe : [EMAIL PROTECTED] List owner : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage : http://proletar.8m.com/ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/proletar/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
