All these so called Western Giants are like little pygmies when compared with average Muslim writers.<quoted text>
I thought you would indeed jump without testing the waters.
It's still seen as an apology for Islam, using material of the 19 and beginning of the 20th century.
Snouck Gurgronje to name one of the giants.
It does indeed not fit your politically correct and adjusted version. We see that new ( relatively as in Tabari edited material does not feature.) and in the 18th and 19th century Mecca was still a hummock, so much unspoiled, as well as the people.
But the sources are Islamic!
So read and think twice before commenting. You are most probably the one with the edited version.
These people have no sense about the "value and standing" of the text they are using.
The books Like Tabari and Ibn Ishaq and likes of have very little authority in Islamic literature.
And these books are the "Best and Most Oft Quoted books in writings of these Western Giants"!!
They even do not understand how any text is to be evaluated before you can use it as evidence.
For these Western Giants the "least authentic reports" are the "most reliable one"....and Prof. Margoliuth accepts it.
The "Only" criterion for these giants to accept any report as "authentic" is that it should be scandalous and it should present Prophet and his companions in some "grey area"!!
They say "if it was not true, why Muslim writers would even mention it"!!
And them little pygmies like you consider the work of these Giant pygmies as of highest standard and quote and re-quote, till you are blue in the face!!