Re: Where did the prophet really live?
- From: "Ayman" <drayman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 19:12:08 CST
Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> don't find these discussions productive at all. I will however,
> respond to a backlog of posts in these threads.
> since your theory of history is intimately tied to your
> religious beliefs, agreeing to disagree is better.
> best let's find a way to wind this down.
Perhaps if you focused more on the issues at hand as opposed to on me or
what you imagine my beliefs to be, you would be more productive.
> nevertheless, he does not regard these features
> as part of the spoken language.
> hence it was not relevant to poetry.
In relation to this inscription, he doesn't mention whether those
features were in the spoken language or not. One thing is clear, which
is that the features of this Arabic inscription demonstrate Sabaic
influences that are totally absent in alleged pre-quranic poetry.
Moreover, you are only making a baseless guess that this alleged poetry
would not have been written. Given its prestige, one would have expected
it to be written and traditions tell us that it was written for
monumental display (the Mu3allaqat). So are you now finally admitting
that those traditions are fabrications?
Now the point that Macdonald makes is that Sabaic was the prestige
language and Sabaic script was the prestige script in Central Arabia.
Given the subject matter of alleged pre-quranic poetry and the prestige
associated with it, one would logically expect it to be in the language
of prestige (Sabaic) or at least containing those types of Sabaic
influences.
> Old Arabic is one form of Ancient North Arabian. it is
> mentioned seperately because of its special interest to us.
> it was mutually comprehensible with the other ancient
> north arabian dialects.
I didn't say otherwise, but there are many obvious differences between
the different ANA dialects. Yet those obvious different features are
completely absent from alleged pre-quranic poetry. So we don't see, for
example, a pre-quranic poem with Safaitic features.
> the other inscriptions are classified as "Undifferentiated
> north arabian". this merely means that there are not sufficient
> diagnostic features to determine what form of ANA, including
> Old Arabic, to classify or rule out. a feature in one inscription
> which he tends to classify as (non-arabic) north arabian is
> one with /bny/ instead of /bn/ for bana" (pronounced bana: is
> classical arabic), "he built". but as we know /bny/ is the
> orthogrpahy of the Qur'an, which became standard. i.e. the
> archaic dialects of western arabia left their mark in the
> dialect of the Hijaz and hence the Qur'an, and hence the
> in some cases the orthography of later standard arabic as well
What dialect of Hijaz? You are merely building a circular argument. On
this thread, we are out to prove where the prophet lived and hence the
great reading originally revealed. Your argument goes something like
this:
"The Quran was revealed in Hijaz, therefore it is in the Hijazi dialect
and the proof that the Quran was revealed in Hijaz is that it is in the
Hijazi dialect."
> Taha Hussein wrongly guessed the *speech* of area. poetry was
> was for recitation among native speakers, not for monumental display.
It is you who is guessing that poetry was not appropriate for writing
and "monumental display". Given its subject matter and the prestige
associated with alleged pre-quranic poetry, we should have seen plenty
of it on display. Ironically, this is exactly what traditionalists
contend, namely that it was displayed prominently and there was great
competition to have it displayed. The ultimate display was allegedly in
the form of the Mu3alaqat. The alleged Mu3alaqat ARE a monumental
display!
> incidentally, medieval arab historians had reported inscriptions
> in Iraq in arabic, in the arabic script, in Iraq.
This further supports my observation.
> > This indicates that in Faw, Sabaic was the prestige language.
> that's hardly news.
Of course the implication that you fail to grasp is that the very formal
and prestigious alleged pre-quranic poetry would have been recited in
the formal language of prestige not in a language that was looked down
upon as informal "street talk".
> > This also explains why Old Arabic and ANA where written in the Sabaic script.
> > Sabaic was the prestige script of the region.
> the Faw inscriptions are 5 centuries or so before the period
> described and quoted in arab tradition as Jahiliyya.
But there are pre-quranic Jahilya poetry attributed to this era and even
before it. So do you finally acknowledge the obvious fact that such
poetry is a later day fabrication?
Moreover, the southern scripts remained in use in Central and Southern
Arabia until the rise of Islam.
> crucial things happened. first Sabaic ceased to be a spoken language.
> then very shortly before Muhammad it was forgotten altogether.
The same can be said about Classical Arabic and even Modern Standard
Arabic or any formalized language. They are not spoken languages. I
don't know of any native Arabic speaker who speaks them at home. So like
Sabaic, they are not spoken languages. Such languages quickly become
forgotten once their formal political or religious raison d?être
disappears.
Like any formal language such as Modern Standard Arabic, Sabaic ceased
to be an everyday spoken language but remained a formal writing language
and certainly the Southern Arabian script remained the script of
prestige for writing in Central and Southern Arabia. This is, of course,
until it was displaced by the Nabataean script as a result of the
momentous event of the revelation of the great reading and its recording
in that script.
> the Jahiliyya period is the century or so immediately preceding
> Muhammad.in this period one finds Sabaic with arabisms rather
> than the other way round.
Because alleged Jahiliya poetry is very formal and prestigious, one
would expect to find the same phenomena mirrored in Jahilya poetry from
the region. Namely, one would have expected to find that they too
contain some Sabaic features to add prestige.
> it is confirmed as much as a historian can confirm
> by the overwhelming majority of historians.
This is simply your wishful thinking that is in reality not confirmed by
a single serious archeologist.
> the argument "everything is poosible becaue we don't
> have newsreel footage" is not scholarly. historians
> and scientists don't talk in absolute terms, which
> makes them at a disadvantage when dealing with crackpots
> who pontificate with endless source source criticism
> and don't apply the same standards to their theories.
But there is no asking for any extraordinary evidence. All that is
needed is any mundane pre-quranic Arabic inscription in the Nabataean
script from so-called Mecca or anywhere in Central Arabia showing the
alleged Hijazi features. You can either produce a single piece of
evidence or we will clearly see the crackpot.
> nobody of significance has even attempted to place
> Muhammad in Hira.
Not necessarily in Hira itself but in a province in Northern Arabia
where the Nabataean script was the script of prestige. The most likely
candidates are the Lakhmid provinces and border trading centers in
Northern Arabia.
> > There is no evidence that any of the features of the script of the great
> > reading, let alone the weakening of the hamza in orthography, are
> > Central Arabian.
> the arabic script replaced the south semitic script because
> of the decline (an ongoing proccess before islam) and collapse
> shortly before Muhamamd.
> the south semitic script was originally from the north, but became a
> script of an important civilization in Yemen.
You are just repeating some irrelevant information to avoid addressing
the fact that there is no evidence in pre-quranic epigraphy from Hijaz
of any of the Hijazi features you are claiming.
> as for the other comment, you are not responding to any
> relevant article, see rabin, "Ancient West Arabian".
As far as I know, Rabin doesn't show any pre-quranic Classical Arabic
inscription from Hijaz in Nabataean script with the weakening of the
hazma or any of the alleged Hijazi features. So this is irrelevant.
There is an inscription in Hegra that exhibits Nabataean features and
possibly the weakening of the Hamza. But this is too far in the North
and is not in Western Arabia.
> the script is "south semitic." Sabaic script is a particular
> variant, also used at Faw in the era BCE.
The Southern Arabian script was used in the Faw and other areas in
Central and Southern Arabia until the rise of Islam.
> various variants of the south semitic script are found there,
> not exclusively Sabaic.
I didn't say that it was exclusively Sabaic. The main point and the fact
remains that no pre-quranic Arabic inscriptions in the Nabataean script
are found in and around so-called Mecca or even in Central Arabia.
> examples of arabic script are found in central before Islam.
Notice how you are conveniently vague. Please be scientific by being
precise instead of hiding your dogmatic views behind such vague
statements. I can only guess what specific examples you are talking
about. The examples I am aware of are in the Nabataean language in
Nabataean script NOT Arabic in Nabataean script. Those inscriptions are
what one would normally expect as Nabataeans were well traveled and
traded all over Arabia.
Show even one pre-quranic Arabic inscription in the Nabataean script
from Hijaz. The closest inscriptions are from Hegra and Sakakah, which
are in Northern Arabia and not Central Arabia. The closest to Hijaz is
the one in Hegra and it is Nabataeo-Arabic and has Nabataean features
and again its language and style is very different to alleged
pre-quranic poetry. The presence of a Nabataeo-Arabic inscription in
Hegra is not surprising given that the Nabataeans founded a commercial
center there. In fact, it is well documented in archeological evidence
that Hegra remained an important trading center well into the Islamic
era and is thus a more likely candidate for the place where the great
reading was revealed than obscure so-called Mecca.
> South Arabian civilization declined in the centuries before
> Muhammad, and just before Muhammad abruptly collapsed.
> the rise of the Kinda kingdom, and what seems to have
> been a bedouinization of arabia (mentioned by authors
> as a factor in the rise of Islam), wiped out other
> Ancient North Arabian dialects by Arabic.
> the replacement of the script, with the partial entry of the
> Lakhmids into the vacuum, is not surprising.
This doesn't explain why suddenly Arabic became the dominant language
and the Nabataean script displaced all the other scripts in the region.
Kinda was a Southern Arabian tribe and their script of prestige must
have been a Southern Arabian script as attested to by the epigraphy in
the region where they lived. Had Kinda been responsible, then one would
have seen the Southern Arabian script dominating. There is zero evidence
that Kinda used the Nabataean Aramaic script to write Arabic. This is,
of course, unless you consider the Namara inscription a Kinda legacy of
Imru' Al-Qays. But in this case, you would have to swallow all your
probability defying arguments about him not being the basis for the
later fictitious poet. Moreover, the Imru' Al-Qays of the Namara is now
considered by researchers to be a Lakhmid king so this further
strengthens my hypothesis. So it seems that you are stuck between a rock
inscription and a hard place. :)
I don't think that it is a coincidence that such events took place
around the time of the rise of Islam as you admit. Such events and the
rapid change can most logically be explained not by the advance of one
tribe or another of the many competing tribes in the area but by a
momentous paradigm-changing event such as the revelation of the great
reading in the Arabic language and its recording in the Nabataean
script.
> that particular suggestion is not made, but one author suggests
> that Muhammad's illiteracy was in the arabic script, but he knew
> the south semitic script (and later learned arabci script). AFAIK
> it is based on the use of xaTT , i.e. "line", to describe writing
> in Q 29:48. arabic script is written fundamentally on a line,
> south semitic script with geometric like figures. but I am not
> arguing for or against it.
This is an interesting suggestion and it is too bad that you are not
investigating it further. As usual, it seems that you are just happy not
to venture out of your comfy traditional zone.
> yes, there was a quite abrupt change in orientation just
> before Muhammad, and during his early lifetime, with the
> collapse of the Ma'rib dam (Q 34:16) and political upheavals.
The change was contemporaneous and in parallel with the revelation of
the great reading. It is what is to be expected as indicated above. Also
the dates of when the prophet lived are likely to be earlier than
traditional accounts as discussed previously on another thread. So this
makes the change directly resulting from the revelation of the great
reading.
> it didn't "become" Greek, which as the langauge of administration
> since the time of Alexander. even under rule from Rome, Greek
> was the working language in the eastern half of the empire.
> but fluency in greek does not seem to have been very common among
> arabs. greek words in classical Arabic are usually found in Syriac
> as well, and they usually show being borrowed from a Syriac or
> other Aramaic filter.
> arabic became a language of church liturgy only in the 19th cent.,
> when the Patriarch of Antioch declared his autonomy (with Russian
> support) from the Patriarch of Constantinople (incidentally, in this
> context "Istanbul" is not used even nowadays), in Greek Orthodox
> churches. in the Eastern Catholic churches AFAIK after the Vatican
> allowed Mass in the vernacular, partially replacing Syriac, which
> is still also used.
> arabic was not used for christian liturgy in any script. what
> you refer to is a "study aid".
Yes, it is a study aid for a religious text. I am not saying otherwise.
It is simply a confirmation that Arabic was not used for religious
liturgy. However, had the great reading been revealed in this milieu, it
would have also been written in the same way. So this negates a Roman
Christian milieu of revelation of the great reading. This was just a
side note that is not relevant to the issue at hand.
> arabic was written in the arabic script in greater syria and
> just before the islamic era in arabia as well, as you state below.
Yes, I agree so this makes those regions more likely candidates than
Mecca. Also, not everywhere in Arabia, only in Northern Arabia we see
the Arabic language written in the Nabataean script (which we now call
Arabic script).
It is only AFTER the revelation of the great reading that we see Arabic
inscriptions in the Nabataean script around Yathrib but NOT around
so-called Mecca. Again, this confirms that the migration was from a
Northern Lakhmid area (most probably a cosmopolitan trading border town)
to Yathrib.
> which brings up the point on the Sabaic features of the inscriptions
> in Faw. pre-Islamic arabic inscriptions (in arabic script) show
> aramaisms such as bar for ibn ("son (of)") not found in the Qur'an,
> or for that matter in normal arabic. so the Sabaicisms found in Faw
> are not an argument against their arabic speech.
I never argued that people from the region didn't speak Arabic in their
informal day-to-day affairs. You are once again building another straw
man.
> the final -w represents a case ending.
> the medial -w- represents an [o:] like pronounciation of
> arabic /a:/ in some places, that was typical of western arabia.
> in other places /a:/ became like [e:], or even -ay (perhaps
> original) hence the spelling with ya' in ancient
> arabian (from the west) texts and in the Qur'an and
> in the non-canonical yemeni codices (where it is
> much more numerous) which was again typical
> for the ancient north arabian dialects (incl. arabic)
Mnwt is the Nabataean spelling with a medial -w- and it probably matches
the Nabataean pronunciation [o:]. As for your assertion that this
pronunciation is typical of pre-quranic Western Arabia, this is not
true. This way of writing the medial ?w- can be seen in Nabataean
inscriptions throughout North Arabia and not just in western (or more
precisely north-western) Arabia. The closest evidence we have is in
Hegra in Northern-Western Arabia.
> but the Qur'anic orthography (and presumeably the original
> pronounciation) matches *western* arabian features,
> whether in nabataean script or in south semitic script.
It doesn't match Central-Western Arabian features. Notice how you now
silently abandon your earlier stand on Central Arabia and Hijaz and now
use the vague term Western Arabia when you realized that the epigraphy
from central Arabia (including central-western Arabia) doesn't support
your musings. Of course, I can only guess that you are probably talking
about the evidence from Hegra, which is in North-Western Arabia and not
in Central Arabia.
This is not surprising. Hegra was a Nabataean trade center where the
Nabataean script was used as the prestige script and it remained a
cosmopolitan trade center well into the Islamic period. Thus, you may
have a stronger case for it being the place where the prophet really
lived as opposed to so-called Mecca.
> the written language of the Qur'an, even the consonantal skeleton
> reflects a declined language. verses like Q 9:3 reflect that this
> was so in speech. otherwise, read as colloquial arabic, Q 9:3 would
> be blasphemous.
Many expressions in non-declined languages would be blasphemous too if
one doesn't consider the context. There is nothing particularly special
about that. So this is nothing more than a self-righteous preconception
that the reader is stupid and you, the pious one, must baby-sit him
because you cannot trust him to figure out the correct meaning from the
context.
It is not surprising that the text of the great reading often reflects a
complete disregard for declination. Some well-known examples include
5:69 where "Sabi'una" should be "Sabi'ina" according to the rules of
Classical Arabic. Another is "moqimin" should be "moqimun" in 4:162. Yet
another is in 2:177 where "sabirin" should be "sabirun".
> but the urban arabic speech of the north, greater syria and iraq,
> seems to have diverged to the colloquials at an early date.
The Arabic language itself was a "colloquial" informal spoken language
at the time of the revelation of the great reading.
> there is no doubt that the declentional system is original
> and older than the colloquial type speech. it is also
> consistent internally and one can confirm its soundness
> by comparing it to other semtic languages. only old akkadian
> has a comparably complete declentional system. it cannot
> have been invented and must have been based on genuine reports
> of actual speech.
> incidentally, old akkadian also had a distinction between
> triptotes and diptotes - which entered the discussions
> here, acc. to an article I had read a while ago.
But the system is not consistent as evident from the several instances
where the text of the written great reading reflects a complete
disregard of even consonantal declination as shown above. So if even
consonantal declination is sometimes completely disregarded then we can
be absolutely certain that the invisible declination was even more
disregarded.
> these items of trade are hardly surprising in any context.
> dirham incidentally is ultimately from greek, but yes,
> through persian.
> middle persian was the language of one of the two principle
> powers throuhout the region. just before Muhammad the power
> of the Sasanids extended considerably in Arabia just
> around the time Muhammad. Yemen had a persian governor
> and the arab tribes were loosely allied with Persia.
> aramaic and persian had some currency throughout the middle
> east. ethiopic and south arabian didn't.
> besides the ethiopic terms are specifically christian, at
> variance with the use of syriac in the north, including
> the nestorian church in Mesopotamia.
You just implied that Yemen was an important province for the Sassanids
so this contradicts your assertion that South Arabian and Ethiopic have
no influence in Arabia and even outside Arabia. Moreover, until their
defeat by the Sassanids, the most powerful force in Arabia was the
Abyssinian and South Arabian would have had great influence. But hey you
believe in the traditional stories that some birds and not the Sassanids
defeated the Abyssinians so it is not surprising that you make illogical
assessments if you believe in such colorful fiction.
We are fortunate in possessing irrefutable epigraphic sources (the
inscription of Abaraha) that show Abyssinian influence extending well
into North Arabia as according to the inscription they defeated the
North Arabian tribe of Ma'add.
Also, as the prophet migrated from Northern Arabia south to Central
Arabia, the Ethiopic South Arabian terms would have been increasingly
used as a result of the new audience.
> any pretense of Lakhmid independence was put to an end at the
> time of the Prophet.
> they were rigth under the nose of the persians with their capital
> Ctesiphon, in Mesopotamia.
> any preaching like that of Muhammad would have been
> delt with ruthlessly by the Perisan army. and importantly,
> it would have been mentioned in records, and even
> Byzantine records which would have expressed a keen interest
> in revolutionary activity in Persia.
Lakhmid political independence was weakening but there is no evidence
that Arabs in Northern Arabia were exterminated by the Persians or that
all the Arabs suddenly relocated to Ctesiphon, in Mesopotamia. Northern
Arabia is not part of Persia proper and the Persian Empire at the time
had plenty of internal issues to deal with, so what by the rejecters
account was an insignificant and easily dismissed "crazy" man who left
Northern Arabia to some remote location in Central Arabia would not
attract their attention. Remember that at the time that they were in
Northern Arabia, the prophet and his followers had no force. It is only
later after consolidating their strength in Yathrib that they returned
to exert great influence on the territory that they left and indeed all
of Arabia. It would be after that time that they would have attracted
attention from the Persians and indeed shortly thereafter conflict arose
and the Persian Empire collapses under this new influence. It is
unthinkable that the nascent Islamic state was the one who attacked the
Persians first.
> Arabia is the place where a new religion would have been
> relativley unmolested by the great powers of the time
> and even initially ignored.
But we know for sure that the prophet and his followers were indeed
molested and this is why they migrated to Yathrib in Central Arabia,
where as you say, they would be ignored. If Persia or any Empire went
after every single person in every border town whose inhabitants thought
was crazy, there would be no time or resources to do anything else.
Also, how would Persia find out? Will the Lakhmids go cry and complain
to Persia about every crazy person? The Persian Emperor would probably
tell the Lakhmids that they are the ones who are crazy to bother him
every time someone goes crazy.
> but the polemics in the Qur'an is not directed against
> jewish and christian scholarship.
> there were no jews in Mesopotamia who believed that Ezra
> was the Son of God and the polemics against christianity
> don't reflect the Athanesian creed and its various nuances.
> that's the whole point of the article by de Blois.
> and Zoroastrianism, the state religion of Persia, only gets
> passing mention.
> the audience of the Qur'an is entirely arab, with no mention
> of the majority ethnic groups of Mesopotamia, Aramaeans and
> Iranian (incl. persians, kurds etc.).
The Lakhmids were not just in Mesopotamia. They were also in Northern
Arabia and exerted influence there. As a political entity, their
influence was weakening but their cultural and commercial influence
would have remained. The area where the prophet originally lived was
likely a cosmopolitan trading border town that maintained a somewhat
neutral disposition and tolerant attitude for commercial reasons. This
way, they could trade with the Persians, the Romans, and any other
political entity in the region. Business came first.
> the Hijaz was also cosmopolitan, in a way, to arab bedouin.
> that's the extent of the cosmopolitanism reflected in the
> Qur'an and traditions, both in language and content.
> but Hira was *too* cosmopolitan.
No, the great reading reflects a cosmopolitan place for both the pagans
and the people of the book. It talks about the place where the prophet
originally lived being "umm al-qura". Unless you are suggesting that a
Bedouin made this passage up, I don't think that The God is exaggerating
or His level of familiarity with geography is the same as that of an
Arab Bedouin.
> it does not explaine why woudl they have burdened the people
> with an unfamilair script.
Most Arabs who don't know English can easily read "salam" and understand
it despite it being in a foreign English script. On the other hand,
English speakers would not know what "thabat" means despite it being in
the English script. If you've ever conversed with a non-English speaking
Arab on text messaging, you would see that the foreign script is not a
burden ("fihimt?"). The real burden is on you to use the physical
evidence from epigraphy to explain why the great reading was written in
the prestige script of the northern Lakhmid areas and not in the
prestige script of central and southern Arabia. Try to be scientific
instead of just giving it lip service and remember Occam's Razor. The
simplest explanation is usually the most correct. In this case, the
simplest explanation that doesn't require any acrobatics or appeal to
dogmatic hearsay is that the great reading was originally revealed in a
Lakhmid area.
> the arabic script (as we know it) did probably originate in
> Lakhmid domains, and arab tradition even credits them for
> introducing it to arabia. but earlier, and there are
> pre-islamic arabic script inscriptions in arabia.
> it has to do with thte collapse of south arabian civilization,
> as I mentioned earlier. it is not inexplicable.
> to be consistentm, you should apply the same impossible
> or nearly impossible "rules of evidnce" to your own musings.
> the introduction of the script was a proccess that was
> going on earlier.
You can hide behind your vague statement "in Arabia", but you can't run
from the fact that there are no "pre-Islamic" Arabic inscriptions in
Central Arabia in the Nabataean script. There are a few Nabataean
inscriptions in the Nabataean script in places like Dedan from the time
when the Nabataean traded there but no Arabic inscriptions in Nabataean
script. The Arabic inscriptions from that area are in the southern
Arabian scripts, the prestige script of that region. Given the fact that
the great reading is in the Nabataean script, it must have been
originally revealed in an area where Nabataean was the prestige script.
This is the simplest and most logical explanation.
Peace,
Ayman
--
http://www.fastmail.fm - Email service worth paying for. Try it for free
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Where did the prophet really live?
- From: Yusuf B Gursey
- Re: Where did the prophet really live?
- Prev by Date: Re: The concept of Kitab
- Next by Date: Two translations added
- Previous by thread: *** HILAL (Crescent Moon) Sighting: Evening Mon/Tue 3/4 Oct 2005 CE, Ramadan 1426 AH ***
- Next by thread: Re: Where did the prophet really live?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
