Hagarism was a Language and literature good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
|
||
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
It was & is the Prevailing(Q:5:48)(Q:7:2)Universal Message (Q:9:33)(Q:15:9)(Q:48:28)(Q:57:9)(Q:61:9) from the Universal God (Q:3:83) to the whole of Humanity (Q:4:174)to each & every individual since it's very beginning - since the start of its first revelation(Q:96:1)in the Cave of Hira - till it's very end its completion of the message(Q:5:3) at Mount of Mercy in Arafat & acknowledges all the Prophets (Q:2:141)(Q:4:163-164)of God since the first to the last - Adam (Q:3:33) to Mohammad (Q:48:29) - with Qiblah (Q:2:144)being the First House (Q:3:96) on Earth built & approved by God for His worship in the first city the 'Mother of Towns' on the first spot to appear as foam on the molten Earth & the most beloved to God & was best of a nation ever brought forth to deliver the message(Q;3:110) as per the both parallel revelations of Qoran: the Primary & the Core & Hadith: the Secondary & the Clarifier (of the first revelation). Qoran is verified guarded (Q:15:9) by God with the its original being in the Guarded Tablet, & verified by the Angel Gabriel by revising it with the Prophet once every year in Ramadan & twice in the last Ramadan , & verified in the following year of the passing away of the Prophet by the First Caliph with the committee of the scribes of revelation when first collected in a scroll form from the clay tablets & the camel bones (shoulder blades), & finally re-verified 15 years later by the Third Caliph by reconstituting the same committee again to collect it in a book form, copied into number of master copies sent to each provincial capital of the caliphate. This is undeniable historically & is undisputed & is agreed by all Muslims & corroborated by all who had witnessed the revelation & who were the contemporaries. Perhaps she bases her doubt on hearsay, who did not witness the events first hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.181.167.165 ( talk) 19:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh okay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.54.106.25 ( talk) 15:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Funny example of a lack of historical critism. Basically useless. Polentarion Talk 21:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
The quotation of Serjeant (not Sergeant!) about Hagarism is only improperly sourced. There is no article of him in "Journal of Royal Asiatic Society (1981) p. 210", but he reviewed Hagarism in an earlier volume: Serjeant, R. B. (1978). Review of Quranic studies: Sources and methods of scriptual interpretation by John Wansbrough and Hagarism: The making of the Islamic world by Patricia Crone and Michael Cook. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 110(01), 76–78, doi:10.1017/S0035869X00134264. I don't have institutional access to the Journal of Royal Asiatic Society, so could please someone else check this citation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.155.37 ( talk) 00:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
The opening paragraph stated that Crone and Cook disavowed Hagarism in 2006, citing page 48 of "Free Markets of Islamic Jurisprudence" by Liaquat Ali Khan. Page 48 of this paper makes no such claim. Based on this, I think it's safe to assume that Crone and/or Cook have not recanted and it's a hoax. Astrohoundy ( talk) 03:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I strongly doubt that interpretation, its as well not being found in any of the sources used to state that claim in the lede. Its based on a mere blog entry. Take http://www.upenn.edu/pennpress/book/toc/14933.html http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=7630524&fileId=S0038713400085997 for actual reviews, current or past. None of them confirms the rather strong claims in the intro. Misuse of sourcing. Polentarion Talk 20:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't think this is a good way of describing a scholarly book. Certainly there are many critical reviews but there are some positive as well and the books is refered by several other scholarly works (Which Midwest anon has conveniently removed). Better descriptions would be "controversial" or "revisionist".-- Rafy talk 10:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
"Generally rejected" is plain lying. Polentarion Talk 23:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC) Introduction to Islam, Cambridge mentiones the word hagarism on three pages, according google books. Neither does provide the content in question.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: MasterOfHisOwnDomain ( talk · contribs) 17:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I will be reviewing this article according to the GA criteria, and expect edits to be made according to my recommendations; the article will be passed or failed according to whether it fulfills this critera. MasterOfHisOwnDomain ( talk) 17:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Comments:
Final assessment: Fail MasterOfHisOwnDomain ( talk) 13:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Note number 7 is wrongly cited. It is not Fred Donner's book that is being cited, but a REVIEW of Donner's book by Jack Tannous, in a journal called Expositions. I tried to edit the reference, but when I click on edit, I didn't get any of the note-text; that is buried in the text of the first para, in a way that makes it extremely difficult, for me at any rate, to figure out how to edit. The correct reference should be as follows:
Jack Tannous, Review of Fred Donner, Muhhamed and the Believers: At the Origins of Islam (2010), Expositions 5.2 (2011), pp. 126-141.
I would greatly appreciate someone editing this for me, as I lack the skills to correct it myself. As it stands, the reference makes it seem as though the ideas and opinions belong to Donner. Some of Donner's opinions are indeed be reflected in the summary portion of the review. But the words used in fact come from Tannous, he deserves the credit, and the reader deserves to be fully informed of their origin.
I've just noticed too that notes 3 and 4, are also incorrectly done, in that neither lists an author. This is a serious problem with note 4, because it is clearly an edited collection, that is, it has multiple authors, so we need to know which one of the several is being cited. Theonemacduff ( talk) 22:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
@ El C and FreeKnowledgeCreator: In what way is that section about how the book is received (its reception) as opposed to its significant claims? If it is about "reception," then why are there both "reception" and "reviews" sections? 2601:243:903:3F5B:45EF:36FB:2D7C:2FA3 ( talk) 03:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
@ FreeKnowledgeCreator: Can you please stop edit warring? Reverting your edits again and again is ridiculous, all three of you. Discuss the issue here. For example, which part of the section, which specific words do you feel "evaluate" or "address" the claims? Is it only the word "controversial"? Tokenzero ( talk) 09:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
At User:Tokenzero/Hagarism, I rewrote the Synopsis section to make it more accurate, concrete, structured, and detailed. I also rearranged the lead and first section. This is based on reading all of Part I and some of the reviews. Unfortunately Parts II and III are beyond my possibilities, partly because of the wider background they require; anyway I only see one review that actually refers to them, so perhaps only Part I is really notable. @ FreeKnowledgeCreator, El C, and BoogaLouie: Any feedback? I can put references to specific pages if some sentence raises doubts (perhaps I should add them everywhere using {{ rp}}?). The existing summary was a bit inaccurate, like in reasons for the name Hagarism, the role of Jerusalem (much weaker in the book), and a somewhat misleading chronology. I believe that this now also subsumes Toby Lester's summary points (most of them already in the lead, the remainder made more precise in the main text). Tokenzero ( talk) 20:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I can't make any sense of the citation to The Letters and Diaries of John Henry Newman. The letters themselves were written way before Hagarism and neither the letters nor prefaces even mention Islam or Muslims, let alone Hagarism, Crone or Cook, as far as I can tell. Pinging @ Bojack22: as you added the reference, and @ JPxG: as you reversed its removal. I've since removed it again. Tokenzero ( talk) 10:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Joshua Jonathan: You've removed virtually all negative discussion in the lead and left all the positive. I believe this is far from a balanced view. Saying it was "criticised" is saying nothing, all scholarly work gets criticised, while "Hagarism" has definitely more serious issues, which are consistently pointed by even the most friendly references. Specifically, I think the words "generally rejected" (with reference to the specific factual theses listed in the paragraph above) and "controversial" should be in the lead, as equivalent formulations are found in numerous references, e.g. "universally rejected" (which is even stronger!) in Waines' An Introduction to Islam and the same in Newby's A History of the Jews of Arabia (and I can't find any reference that would say the factual theses were even slightly accurate).
We have to discuss these factual claims made in Hagarism, but doing that carries some weight: the reader can expect a rather large level of credibility from a scholarly monograph. This should be countered by an overview of the current scholarly view on these claims. I don't think I'm putting undue weight on the most critical reviews, I really tried to highlight later textbook references, which discuss Hagarism from a distance and in a wider context. Tokenzero ( talk) 11:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Hagarism was a Language and literature good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
|
||
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
It was & is the Prevailing(Q:5:48)(Q:7:2)Universal Message (Q:9:33)(Q:15:9)(Q:48:28)(Q:57:9)(Q:61:9) from the Universal God (Q:3:83) to the whole of Humanity (Q:4:174)to each & every individual since it's very beginning - since the start of its first revelation(Q:96:1)in the Cave of Hira - till it's very end its completion of the message(Q:5:3) at Mount of Mercy in Arafat & acknowledges all the Prophets (Q:2:141)(Q:4:163-164)of God since the first to the last - Adam (Q:3:33) to Mohammad (Q:48:29) - with Qiblah (Q:2:144)being the First House (Q:3:96) on Earth built & approved by God for His worship in the first city the 'Mother of Towns' on the first spot to appear as foam on the molten Earth & the most beloved to God & was best of a nation ever brought forth to deliver the message(Q;3:110) as per the both parallel revelations of Qoran: the Primary & the Core & Hadith: the Secondary & the Clarifier (of the first revelation). Qoran is verified guarded (Q:15:9) by God with the its original being in the Guarded Tablet, & verified by the Angel Gabriel by revising it with the Prophet once every year in Ramadan & twice in the last Ramadan , & verified in the following year of the passing away of the Prophet by the First Caliph with the committee of the scribes of revelation when first collected in a scroll form from the clay tablets & the camel bones (shoulder blades), & finally re-verified 15 years later by the Third Caliph by reconstituting the same committee again to collect it in a book form, copied into number of master copies sent to each provincial capital of the caliphate. This is undeniable historically & is undisputed & is agreed by all Muslims & corroborated by all who had witnessed the revelation & who were the contemporaries. Perhaps she bases her doubt on hearsay, who did not witness the events first hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.181.167.165 ( talk) 19:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh okay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.54.106.25 ( talk) 15:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Funny example of a lack of historical critism. Basically useless. Polentarion Talk 21:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
The quotation of Serjeant (not Sergeant!) about Hagarism is only improperly sourced. There is no article of him in "Journal of Royal Asiatic Society (1981) p. 210", but he reviewed Hagarism in an earlier volume: Serjeant, R. B. (1978). Review of Quranic studies: Sources and methods of scriptual interpretation by John Wansbrough and Hagarism: The making of the Islamic world by Patricia Crone and Michael Cook. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 110(01), 76–78, doi:10.1017/S0035869X00134264. I don't have institutional access to the Journal of Royal Asiatic Society, so could please someone else check this citation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.155.37 ( talk) 00:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
The opening paragraph stated that Crone and Cook disavowed Hagarism in 2006, citing page 48 of "Free Markets of Islamic Jurisprudence" by Liaquat Ali Khan. Page 48 of this paper makes no such claim. Based on this, I think it's safe to assume that Crone and/or Cook have not recanted and it's a hoax. Astrohoundy ( talk) 03:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I strongly doubt that interpretation, its as well not being found in any of the sources used to state that claim in the lede. Its based on a mere blog entry. Take http://www.upenn.edu/pennpress/book/toc/14933.html http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=7630524&fileId=S0038713400085997 for actual reviews, current or past. None of them confirms the rather strong claims in the intro. Misuse of sourcing. Polentarion Talk 20:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't think this is a good way of describing a scholarly book. Certainly there are many critical reviews but there are some positive as well and the books is refered by several other scholarly works (Which Midwest anon has conveniently removed). Better descriptions would be "controversial" or "revisionist".-- Rafy talk 10:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
"Generally rejected" is plain lying. Polentarion Talk 23:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC) Introduction to Islam, Cambridge mentiones the word hagarism on three pages, according google books. Neither does provide the content in question.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: MasterOfHisOwnDomain ( talk · contribs) 17:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I will be reviewing this article according to the GA criteria, and expect edits to be made according to my recommendations; the article will be passed or failed according to whether it fulfills this critera. MasterOfHisOwnDomain ( talk) 17:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Comments:
Final assessment: Fail MasterOfHisOwnDomain ( talk) 13:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Note number 7 is wrongly cited. It is not Fred Donner's book that is being cited, but a REVIEW of Donner's book by Jack Tannous, in a journal called Expositions. I tried to edit the reference, but when I click on edit, I didn't get any of the note-text; that is buried in the text of the first para, in a way that makes it extremely difficult, for me at any rate, to figure out how to edit. The correct reference should be as follows:
Jack Tannous, Review of Fred Donner, Muhhamed and the Believers: At the Origins of Islam (2010), Expositions 5.2 (2011), pp. 126-141.
I would greatly appreciate someone editing this for me, as I lack the skills to correct it myself. As it stands, the reference makes it seem as though the ideas and opinions belong to Donner. Some of Donner's opinions are indeed be reflected in the summary portion of the review. But the words used in fact come from Tannous, he deserves the credit, and the reader deserves to be fully informed of their origin.
I've just noticed too that notes 3 and 4, are also incorrectly done, in that neither lists an author. This is a serious problem with note 4, because it is clearly an edited collection, that is, it has multiple authors, so we need to know which one of the several is being cited. Theonemacduff ( talk) 22:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
@ El C and FreeKnowledgeCreator: In what way is that section about how the book is received (its reception) as opposed to its significant claims? If it is about "reception," then why are there both "reception" and "reviews" sections? 2601:243:903:3F5B:45EF:36FB:2D7C:2FA3 ( talk) 03:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
@ FreeKnowledgeCreator: Can you please stop edit warring? Reverting your edits again and again is ridiculous, all three of you. Discuss the issue here. For example, which part of the section, which specific words do you feel "evaluate" or "address" the claims? Is it only the word "controversial"? Tokenzero ( talk) 09:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
At User:Tokenzero/Hagarism, I rewrote the Synopsis section to make it more accurate, concrete, structured, and detailed. I also rearranged the lead and first section. This is based on reading all of Part I and some of the reviews. Unfortunately Parts II and III are beyond my possibilities, partly because of the wider background they require; anyway I only see one review that actually refers to them, so perhaps only Part I is really notable. @ FreeKnowledgeCreator, El C, and BoogaLouie: Any feedback? I can put references to specific pages if some sentence raises doubts (perhaps I should add them everywhere using {{ rp}}?). The existing summary was a bit inaccurate, like in reasons for the name Hagarism, the role of Jerusalem (much weaker in the book), and a somewhat misleading chronology. I believe that this now also subsumes Toby Lester's summary points (most of them already in the lead, the remainder made more precise in the main text). Tokenzero ( talk) 20:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I can't make any sense of the citation to The Letters and Diaries of John Henry Newman. The letters themselves were written way before Hagarism and neither the letters nor prefaces even mention Islam or Muslims, let alone Hagarism, Crone or Cook, as far as I can tell. Pinging @ Bojack22: as you added the reference, and @ JPxG: as you reversed its removal. I've since removed it again. Tokenzero ( talk) 10:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Joshua Jonathan: You've removed virtually all negative discussion in the lead and left all the positive. I believe this is far from a balanced view. Saying it was "criticised" is saying nothing, all scholarly work gets criticised, while "Hagarism" has definitely more serious issues, which are consistently pointed by even the most friendly references. Specifically, I think the words "generally rejected" (with reference to the specific factual theses listed in the paragraph above) and "controversial" should be in the lead, as equivalent formulations are found in numerous references, e.g. "universally rejected" (which is even stronger!) in Waines' An Introduction to Islam and the same in Newby's A History of the Jews of Arabia (and I can't find any reference that would say the factual theses were even slightly accurate).
We have to discuss these factual claims made in Hagarism, but doing that carries some weight: the reader can expect a rather large level of credibility from a scholarly monograph. This should be countered by an overview of the current scholarly view on these claims. I don't think I'm putting undue weight on the most critical reviews, I really tried to highlight later textbook references, which discuss Hagarism from a distance and in a wider context. Tokenzero ( talk) 11:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)