Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


Excellence and uniqueness
by akay
Today at 07:51 AM

Iran uprising - is the en...
by zeca
Today at 12:56 AM

New PM incoming
Yesterday at 11:05 PM

Qur'anic studies today
Yesterday at 08:47 PM

NayaPakistan...New Pakist...
Yesterday at 04:42 PM

What music are you listen...
by zeca
November 17, 2019, 06:59 PM

Kashmir endgame
November 17, 2019, 02:55 PM

Anti-imperialism and the ...
by zeca
November 17, 2019, 02:40 PM

'Islamic State' a.k.a. IS...
by zeca
November 16, 2019, 11:39 PM

Painted pious ladies
November 16, 2019, 09:03 PM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
November 16, 2019, 06:22 PM

Lebanon protests
by zeca
November 16, 2019, 01:21 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Qur'anic studies today

 (Read 384614 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 63 64 6566 67 ... 279 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #1920 - April 20, 2018, 11:18 PM

    Thread: https://mobile.twitter.com/iandavidmorris/status/987417137642967040
    Quote from: Ian David Morris
    I’m not sure, but I think I might have found an echo of Biblical phrasing in the Qur’an

  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #1921 - April 25, 2018, 12:46 AM

    Daniel Beck's point :

    Evolution of the Early Qur’ān
    From Anonymous Apocalypse to Charismatic Prophet

    Critical scholarship on the Qur’ān and early Islam has neglected the enigmatic earliest surahs. Advocating a more evolutionary analytical method, this book argues that the basal surahs are logical, clear, and intelligible compositions. The analysis systematically elucidates the apocalyptic context of the Qur’ān’s most archaic layers. Decisive new explanations are given for classic problems such as what the surah of the elephant means, why an anonymous man is said to frown and turn away from a blind man, why the prophet is summoned as one who wraps or cloaks himself, and what the surah of the qadr refers to.

    Grounded in contemporary context, the analysis avoids reducing these innovative recitations to Islamic, Jewish, or Christian models. By capitalizing on recent advances in fields such as Arabian epigraphy, historical linguistics, Manichaean studies, and Sasanian history, a very different picture of the early quranic milieu emerges. This picture challenges prevailing critical and traditional models alike. Against the view that quranic revelation was a protracted process, the analysis suggests a more compressed timeframe, in which Mecca played relatively little role. The analysis further demonstrates that the earliest surahs were already intimately connected to the progression of the era’s cataclysmic Byzantine-Sasanian war. All scholars interested in the Qur’ān, early Islam, late antique history, and the apocalyptic genre will be interested in the book’s dynamic new approach to resolving intractable problems in these areas.



    Preface – Acknowledgments – Maccabees Not Mecca : The Biblical Subtext and the Apocalyptic Context of Sūrat al-Fīl (Q 105) – Al-Ṣamad of Sūrat al-Iḫlāṣ (Q 112) – On the Genealogy of the Rasūl Function : From Eschatological Descent of the Astral Messenger to the Devotional Ascent of the Earthly Messenger – Sūrat al-Qadr (Q 97) : Celebrating the Celestial Savior’s Descent and Refuting Christian Communal Ritual – Opening and Pouring-Out the Warner : Sūrat al-Šarḥ (Q 94) and the Construction of Quranic Prophetology – A Servant Wrapped in Glory : The Counter-Baptism of Sūrat al-Muddaṯṯir and Sūrat al-Muzzammil (Q 73 and 74) – Postface—Chronology and Geography – Works Cited – Index.

    https://www.peterlang.com/view/product/83373?tab=subjects

  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #1922 - April 25, 2018, 01:18 AM

    Interesting. "In which Mecca played relatively little role." Of course, there's no "Mecca" (as recounted by Ibn Ishaq...) before Islam. As Daniel Beck is not an academic in the field, he can say it. (You can say it Daniel !) The situation is starting to be crazy. Not one academic would contest the traditional account of "Mecca" of Ibn Ishaq (and the rest : the "prophet"). Not one : the money would stop to flow to the University which would allow one of his scholar to say it. Because the money come from the Gulf. Elsewhere (in Europe) the reason is the terror of the "jihadists" aided by the massive presence of the Muslim immigration,

    To me your work seems unfinished.  It's a great effort but/and there's many more to say.


  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #1923 - April 25, 2018, 05:31 PM

    Altara

    I do not share your negative view of modern scholarship. Scholars are constantly coming up with theories that are against the standard narrative. Saying that scholars do not dispute Mecca due to fear is also unjustified and does not hold up to scrutiny. Many scholars have, and still do, dispute Mecca, such as Wansbrough, Crone, Gibson, Gallez, Dye, Sharon, Lamsiah, Gross, Plato, Hawting, Segovia, Gobillot, Kerr, Thomas, Dequin, and the list goes on. Apologize if I made some mistake concerning some these names.

    Am I denying that there exists political correctness in Islamic Studies? No, I am not. Political correctness exists in every field (generalization). Some of it is good, and some of it is bad. But to claim that academics are afraid is not correct and must be judged case by case. Many are not convinced simply due to the evidence and the arguments. Scholars are constancy going back and forth on these important issues. Besides, to my knowledge, the majoritarian position in Quranic Studies is Wansbroughian Revisionism. And you know what? This is admitted by none other than Angelika Neuwirth, a known Neo-Traditional scholar. So, how come you have such a negative assessment when your own scholarly position, Wansbroughian Revisionism, that is, is the dominate position in academia, or at least in Quranic Studies?




  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #1924 - April 25, 2018, 05:41 PM



    ...........Political correctness exists in every field (generalization). Some of it is good, and some of it is bad. ...............

       
     
    "Political correctness exists   is good" for what  dear Mahgraye ??   

    ........Many scholars have, and still do, dispute Mecca, such as Wansbrough, Crone, Gibson, Gallez, Dye, Sharon, Lamsiah, Gross, Plato, Hawting, Segovia, Gobillot, Kerr, Thomas, Dequin, and the list goes on. Apologize if I made some mistake concerning some these names.............

     

    dear Mahgraye I would  greatly  appreciate  any links from those  authors who  said/wrote disputing Mecca existence  ..  if they did it  THEY MUST HAVE DONE VERY INDIRECTLY........


    with  best regards
    yeezevee

    Do not let silence become your legacy  
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #1925 - April 25, 2018, 08:03 PM

    I repeat here : if the "Mecca" of Ibn Ishaq is not the "Mecca" which has existed, which could be a "sanctuary" with one ruined building lost in a barren desert  like thousands in the peninsula, with no agriculture, no water, no FOOD, etc.,  then the story recounted by Ibn Ishaq is a fable to which he believes as a Muslim,  because it is the story which he has been TOLD, but for normal people it is a fable which must not be believed. Then the presence of a "prophet" is not possible. To whom this "prophet" would have "proclaimed" the Quran apart to sand and stones ? To nobody because there was no people in a "great city of commerce bla bla bla"  that nobody knows of in Orient. Therefore, if there's no people , there's no "prophet". There's no need of a "prophet to WRITE the Quran, just need people who have the CURSUS and there are THOUSANDS in the Orient at that time (5,6 th c.)
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #1926 - April 25, 2018, 08:42 PM

    Altara

    I do not share your negative view of modern scholarship. Scholars are constantly coming up with theories that are against the standard narrative.


    Dear Mahgraye,
    It's inexact. None of them say : " There's no Mecca before islam, therefore there was no prophet" None. None apart Wansbrough (but he is not writing in English but his own language...)  Crone never said that (there's a paper about Crone in academia,  (in French) which demonstrate brilliantly  that Crone is not at all a 'sceptic' or 'revisionist') therefore there's nobody. You told me yourself that Guillaume Dye himself is a great believer in Mecca ! Yourself !
    Gallez is not an academic,  he still believes that there was a "prophet" and "Medina" , never read Hawting saying that "There's no Mecca before islam, therefore there was no prophet" nor Segovia, Gobillot, etc. Never. Kerr was fired by his Canadian University because of his writings on Islam and as he is fluent in German he has found refuge in Germany where he writes ONLY in German. Only in German about Punic linguistics !  Gross, Plato,Thomas, Dequin, I do not know these people (I'm sorry...)Angelika Neuwirth is a super great believer, she was talking like an Imam of Al Ahzar in the broadcast 'Jesus et l'Islam" about the "Prophet" at each phrase she pronounced ; she was in love with him.







     
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #1927 - April 25, 2018, 09:35 PM

    Dear Altara,

    Is there a problem if scholars (Gallez, for instance) believe that there existed an Arabian prophet or a city called Mecca? Gallez (and other researchers) believe that there existed a historical figure with the nick name Muhammad that played a certain role in the early days of Islam. On the other hand, they disbelieve in the Muhammad of the Sira al-nabawiyya, which they think is 95 % fabricated. Gallez does not beleive in Mecca simply due to belief. Rather, he believes that Mecca existed in Northern Syria based on the archaeological evidence provided by René Dussaud (and he provides additional evidence to my knowledge).

    Could you please provide the French paper about Crone?

    Why should Hawting say that to begin with? He is not obliged to. And he is a Wansbroughian revisionist. You seem to think that scholars must utter that particular phrase of yours.

    The scholars whom you where not familiar with (Gross, etc.) are all members of the Inarah Institute. The Institute that is famous for advocating your line of research and even denying the existence of Muhammad (Luxenberg, Ohlig, Popp, Gross, and even Kerr).


  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #1928 - April 25, 2018, 10:42 PM

     
    Dear Altara,

    Is there a problem if scholars (Gallez, for instance) believe that there existed an Arabian prophet or a city called Mecca? Gallez (and other researchers) believe that there existed a historical figure with the nick name Muhammad that played a certain role in the early days of Islam. On the other hand, they disbelieve in the Muhammad of the Sira al-nabawiyya, which they think is 95 % fabricated. Gallez does not beleive in Mecca simply due to belief. Rather, he believes that Mecca existed in Northern Syria based on the archaeological evidence provided by René Dussaud (and he provides additional evidence to my knowledge). ....
     

    hello   Mahgraye  ..   i hope  you are  referring to the work of  that Christian priest Édouard-Marie Gallez
     
     if Mecca  existed in northern  Syria  and if  there was  a man with a nickname "Muhammad"., then  whole lot of new history need to be written around Islam.,  Please realize THAT SYRIAN  MUHAMMAD must have been very popular guy  before Islam  hence his life story is  important .,Question now is .,

     does  Édouard-Marie Gallez  provide any evidence  on that person  or is it just a hand waving  idea??

     

    Do not let silence become your legacy  
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #1929 - April 25, 2018, 11:01 PM

    Yes, Yeezevee, I am referring to the Catholic priest you mentioned. But I forgot to mention this: Gallez does not beleive that Muhammad wrote the Quran (maybe had something to do with it). He actually believes that Nazoreans wrote it. Multiple authors, that is. And Gallez is not making some grandiose claim at all. He and other scholars are simply saying that an Arabian prophet with the nickname Muhammad existed. This is mere minimal historicity. I assume he and others justify this by appealing to our earliest Christian sources. Why should he have been popular before Islam? And in some sense, he was, considering that the earliest Christian sources make mention of him.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #1930 - April 25, 2018, 11:40 PM

    Dear Mahgraye,

    Yes there is. The Gallez thesis as a whole is not convincing : it is not the jihad which is at the origin of islam, as thought de Prémare as well. Even if the Gallez thesis is interesting (I quote it and I took from him one of his concept), he drew heavily on Hagarism. It is his mistake, as Hagarism does not set aside the traditional account completely. Hagarism keeps the "prophet" as an actor of the event. Therefore one way or another as the author of the Quran.  From this very moment (in which Gallez is as well because he keeps "Mecca" -even in Syria or Japan, it changes nothing- and "Medina") you cannot comprehend the big picture. Keeping the fable, prevent you to comprehend, thus the event remains incomprehensible.  And the Muslims laugh because the incomprehensibility is, for them, the evidence of the action of God about the Quran. They don't understand anything either ( to the Quran)   but it is not important for them, because they believe in it, they believe that it is the Book of God.  Nobody can comprehend God. And they laugh at us. But they won't be laughing long, I promise that.
    The French paper is in academia ; if you search "Patricia Crone sceptic " something like that  you'll find it.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #1931 - April 26, 2018, 11:00 AM

    Yes, Yeezevee, I am referring to the Catholic priest you mentioned  

    I am glad we are speaking about  same person dear Mahgraye  ....  You obviously   well versed with  language and I don't understand   a word of french  but let  me give links for his works

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syY6Z0hnrWw

    Quote


    Being   not familiar with his work on Islamic history  I am just curious,  when  did  he start  inquiring/investigating origins  of Islam??  

    .
    Quote
    But I forgot to mention this: Gallez does not beleive that Muhammad wrote the Quran (maybe had something to do with it). He actually believes that Nazoreans wrote it. Multiple authors, that is.

      The fundamental problem with Islamic history  is  THAT WORD  "MUHAMMAD".   Many of Non-Muslim Academics   who investigate origins  of Islam from west and Islamic intellectuals  from East & west    who  preach/propogate  Islam consider "Muhammad ''  is  a name /Proper name of  Prophet of Islam ., The problem starts right there  dear Mahgraye.,  

    for e.g.  in  your post  you say
    Quote
    And Gallez is not making some grandiose claim at all. He and other scholars are simply saying that an Arabian prophet with the nickname Muhammad existed.  This is mere minimal historicity. I assume he and others justify this by appealing to our earliest Christian sources.

      THERE IS NO HISTORICITY THERE.,    it is just copy pasting few words  of  a Christian priest of that time on alleged  existence of  Muhammad from   He said/i said/you said sources

    I agree and  understand  that  HISTORICITY  OF MUHAMMAD" is a debatable subject .,  it goes same to historical figure such as Moses, Jesus or Buddha  as no one alive today  have witnessed their deeds/actions   and sayings .,  Clearly we are  all looking for evidence   similar to  the figures like  say  Alexander the great or Roman kings such as Julius Caesar/Augustus   or even Genghis Khan

    the  problem  with inquiring the Muhammad " The prophet of Islam  is the EMOTIONAL/POLITICAL/ECONOMICAL BACK LASH    from Islamic world   as well as Academics in western universities whose bread and butter is writing stories  on Muhammad..

    Quote
    Why should he have been popular before Islam? And in some sense, he was, considering that the earliest Christian sources make mention of him.

    You are questioning and you are answering your question .,  

    So questions to you dear Mahgraye

    In what sense he)Muhammad)  was famous before Islam?
    What are earliest Christian sources ((you   and others know))  that mention Muhammad The Prophet of Islam?



    Do not let silence become your legacy  
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #1932 - April 26, 2018, 04:34 PM

    The (English) site of Gallez : http://rootsofislamtruehistory.com/
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #1933 - April 26, 2018, 08:45 PM

    The (English) site of Gallez : http://rootsofislamtruehistory.com/

      oh  i see that is from  http://www.lemessieetsonprophete.com/annexes/le_livre.htm

    thank you Altara ....  interesting pdf files at that link...   Ziauddin Sardar (Pakistani  Origin)  wrote a book on Mecca  .. the present   Mecca..

        


    https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/mecca-the-sacred-city-by-ziauddin-sardar-book-review-ancient-rites-sit-beside-new-frills-9740938.html







    Do not let silence become your legacy  
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #1934 - April 27, 2018, 05:36 PM

    Mehdy Shaddel - Traces of the hamza in the Early Arabic Script: The Inscriptions of Zuhayr, Qays the Scribe, and ‘Yazīd the King’

    https://www.academia.edu/35342533/Traces_of_the_hamza_in_the_Early_Arabic_Script_The_Inscriptions_of_Zuhayr_Qays_the_Scribe_and_Yazīd_the_King_Arabian_Epigraphic_Notes_4_2018_pp._35-52_

    https://mobile.twitter.com/MayShaddel/status/989882960173187073
    Quote
    My article on an archaic orthographic feature ('proto-hamza') in the early Arabic script (which also edits three important early inscriptions), published in @AENJournal. With special thanks to Ahmad Al-Jallad and Marijn van Putten […]

    This should put the final nail in the coffin of some preposterous, fanciful recent claims—advanced out of not-so-benign motives—that these are 'fakes'.

  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #1935 - April 27, 2018, 08:35 PM

    Soon, an inscription signed or mentioning Abu Hurayra (or equivalent...) I'm waiting the retweet of Guillaume Dye. I think it shall not happen... (on the other hand, I'll be disappointed...)
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #1936 - April 27, 2018, 08:51 PM

    What do you mean Altara? Why do you mention Guillaume Dye? You are also welcome to give your thoughts (preferably with some details) about the Zuhayr inscription. 
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #1937 - April 27, 2018, 09:12 PM

    Dear Mahgraye,  Since the soldier Shaddel has written this tweet :

    Quote
    My article on an archaic orthographic feature ('proto-hamza') in the early Arabic script (which also edits three important early inscriptions), published in @AENJournal. With special thanks to Ahmad Al-Jallad and Marijn van Putten […]

    This should put the final nail in the coffin of some preposterous, fanciful recent claims—advanced out of not-so-benign motives—that these are 'fakes'.



     and as Guillaume Dye is one of his followers, I'm waiting the Dye retweet, meaning he approves and endorses the tweet and the paper. I think it shall not happen... (on the other hand, I'll be disappointed...)
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #1938 - April 27, 2018, 09:20 PM

    [Note: this comment was written before I saw your latest comment, dear Altara]

    E. Gallez, R. Kerr, and M. Lamsiah all think that the inscription is fabricated, or at the very least, tampered with. I am also skeptical about the nature of the inscription. But I recently found out that there are two different inscriptions, one dated and one undated. This could explain the different pictures which where used by Kerr and Lamsiah to argue that someone tampered with the writing, the older picture lacking the extra phrase of the newer one. Lamsiah has written some Facebook posts on this in Arabic and Kerr is going to publish something soon.

    Dye also has some reservations regarding the inscription.

    Anyways, why do you think that the inscription is a fake? I would appreciate an objective and scholarly answer.

    For the two different inscriptions, see Mehdy Shaddel, “Traces of the hamza in the Early Arabic Script“, 38–44.

    Here are the links to Lamsiah’s posts (Arabic):

    https://www.facebook.com/quranscrollsshow/posts/576357286066366

    https://www.facebook.com/quranscrollsshow/posts/562049037497191

    Kerr’s brief articles on the inscription (German):

    https://www.academia.edu/36068137/Zur_Inschrift_von_Zuhayr_--_eine_authentische_F%C3%A4lschung

    https://www.academia.edu/36505937/Die_epigraphische_Historiographie_des_fr%C3%BChen_Islams

  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #1939 - April 27, 2018, 11:02 PM

    Dear Mahgraye,

    I do not know what is, means, the Zuhayr one. Seems bizarre to me that it was discovered such lately. Conveniently, it contains the key words necessary to elaborate about the traditional account. I'm waiting for a coin of the great (and rich) city of commerce, etc.  To me the Zuhyar one convince Muslims, not scholars.
    That a guy like Shaddel deals with this kind of things is itself a sign. Nor Jallad nor van Putten have risked to take care of it. They saw the trap and have delegated to one soldier the work. Themselves cautiously standing outside the melee. Why that ? Is this not an inscription naming "Umar" ibn al-Khattab ?  Cheesy
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #1940 - April 27, 2018, 11:14 PM

    Nothing weird about the inscription. Jallad and van Putten also think it is genuine. To say that scholars do not beleive in the inscription is unjust, Altara. Here is the names of those who affirm its authenticity: Jallad, Putten, Gürsey, Imbert, Hoyland, Shaddel, Schoeler, Lindstedt, Robin, etc. None of these scholars I named are Muslims to my knowledge.

    I do not find anything abnormal in an inscription that supports some aspects of the traditional narrative. Sure, it could be true, and it could be wrong. But to dismiss a priori because it lends support to some aspects of the later sources is not justified. And again, I am also skeptical of the inscription. 

    What do you mean by they saw the trap? What trap? 
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #1941 - April 27, 2018, 11:43 PM

    Dear Mahgraye,

    I've already responded clearly to all your questions ! Thanks to reread me.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #1942 - April 28, 2018, 11:18 AM

    Correction : Dye is not a follower of Shaddel but of Van Putten, AEN, and Daniel Beck ! Who has applause to Shaddel article !  Therefore Dye have seen the applause of Beck to Shaddel. None reaction from his side. He will not react. He feels that all these "sudden" inscriptions smells not good, hahaha !
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #1943 - April 28, 2018, 12:12 PM

    How do you know? And yes, he has some reservations?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #1944 - April 28, 2018, 12:16 PM

    Again, I do not see the comical part in all this. Several scholars, all of whom leading experts within the subject, accept the inscription as genuine. I even mentioned some of them. Anyways, we will have to wait and see. Scholars are providing their respective evidence on this issue. But I am yet to see your evidence as to why the inscription is a fake. You merely mentioned Umar in a sarcastic manner but did not provide actual evidence.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #1945 - April 28, 2018, 12:17 PM

    Sudden inscriptions? Are there more inscriptions you doubt in addition to that of Zuhayr?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #1946 - April 28, 2018, 03:50 PM

    Again, I do not see the comical part in all this. Several scholars, all of whom leading experts within the subject, accept the inscription as genuine. I even mentioned some of them. Anyways, we will have to wait and see. Scholars are providing their respective evidence on this issue. But I am yet to see your evidence as to why the inscription is a fake. You merely mentioned Umar in a sarcastic manner but did not provide actual evidence.


    Dear Mahgraye,

    The comical (ironic) part lies in the fact that it is a soldier (Shaddel) who take care of the Zuhayr inscription in writing an article. Nor van Putten, nor Jallad, nor Imbert, (or another...) who hold academic positions. Even Hoyland (who is not an epigraphist) does not dedicate an article to it. Yet they should have been, as academics, those who should have been written articles about that inscription. Why they did not do it ? Why they just say :"yes, it's genuine" whereas it is their job ? Because they know nothing about the inscription, and they know that they know nothing, i.e,  that it could be a fake. They do not want to deal with that risk. So they publish nothing about it. That they say (in tweeter, not a paper) it's "genuine" is not at all in their view the same thing that if they wrote an article (even a draft in academia), they are very aware of that. They do not take any risk to lose credibility if one day something emerges with the evidence that it is a fake. They have not the desire to lose credibility vis à vis their colleagues in being tricked by a fake. Moreover, Imbert has published a note in 2013 about the "Umar" inscriptions in his very interesting article " GRAFFITI ARABES DE CNIDE ET DE KOS" the note is : "Annexe – Note épigraphique sur la découverte récente de graffiti arabes
    mentionnant le calife ʿUmar b. al-Ḫaṭṭāb (Najrân, Arabie Saoudite)" In 2015 (CALIFES, PRINCES ET COMPAGNONS DANS LES GRAFFITI DU DEBUT DE L’ISLAM) he said : "
    Quote
    Néanmoins, le cas de cette inscription ne doit pas cacher des mentions des premiers califes qui, elles, sont bien réelles et reconnaissables sur la pierre. En effet, plusieurs graffiti mentionnent ʿUmar b. al-Ḫaṭṭāb, second calife qui régna immédiatement après Abū Bakr, de 13/634 à 24/644. La première inscription citant ʿUmar fut trouvée par le chercheur saoudien A.Ghabban à Qāʿ al-Muʿtadil à l’est d’al-ʿUlā en Arabie. Il s’agit d’un texte à portée purement historique daté de 24/644 : anā Zuhayr katabt zaman tuwuffiya ʿUmar sanat arbaʿ wa ʿišrīn (C’est moi, Zuhayr ! J’ai écrit à l’époque de la mort de ʿUmar, en l’année 24).
    Autrement dit, ce graffito est postérieur de seulement 12 ans à la mort du prophète
    Muḥammad. Ce texte rare met en correspondance les données épigraphiques avec celle de la
    tradition historiographique puisque la gravure de Zuhayr est doublement datée par la mention
    de « l’époque de ʿUmar » et par la datation en années (fig. 1). Plus récemment, en 2012, deux
    autres graffiti mentionnant le même personnage ont été découverts par nos soins sur le site
    d’al-Murakkab près de Najrān au sud de l’Arabie Saoudite10. Le premier, près du sol sur un
    rocher isolé, est gravé assez superficiellement : ʿUmar b. al-Ḫaṭṭāb bi-Llāh yaṯiq (ʿUmar b.
    al-Ḫaṭṭāb place sa confiance en Dieu) (fig. 2). Plus haut sur le même site, sous un abri
    rocheux isolé, c’est une signature, sans doute autographe, que nous avons relevée : ʿUmar b.
    al-Ḫaṭṭāb.
    Cependant, ces découvertes importantes soulèvent deux épineux problèmes : le
    premier touche à la biographie de ce compagnon qui semble ne s’être jamais rendu
    officiellement à Najrān durant la période islamique, si l’on s’en tient aux récits rapportés par
    la tradition musulmane. D’une manière générale, celle-ci s’étend peu sur les voyages de
    ʿUmar avant l’islam, mais elle évoque quelquefois son métier de commerçant et ses
    déplacements dans la péninsule Arabique et vers le Yémen notamment 11; rien n’empêcherait
    donc qu’il se soit rendu aux environs de Najrān avant sa conversion à l’islam qui aurait eu lieu
    à l’âge de 26 ans . Nous mettons de côté l’hypothèse de l’homonymie ancienne bien qu’elle
    ne puisse être rejetée radicalement. Les sources arabes classiques ne font pas mention, à une
    exception près, de personnages de haute époque qui se seraient appelés ʿUmar b. al-Ḫaṭṭāb
    comme le calife  Si nous comparons le texte historique de 24/644 avec les deux graffiti
    d’al-Murakkab, nous constatons que dans le premier, le personnage (calife et compagnon)
    n’est appelé que par la forme restreinte de son nom (ism)ʿUmar. À al-Murakkab, il est gravé
    dans une forme plus traditionnelle (ism + nasab), celle que l’on trouve communément dans
    les graffiti. Toutefois, dans tous les textes citant ʿUmar, le nom n’est jamais accompagné du
    titre d’amīr al-mu’minīn (commandeur des croyants) alors qu’il fut le premier à le porter .
    De surcroît aucune eulogie de type raḍiya Llāhʿan-hu (que Dieu soit satisfait de lui)
    n’accompagne la mention de son nom, eulogie généralement réservée aux compagnons du
    prophète qui trouve son origine dans le Coran. Ceci conforte l’idée d’une mise en place
    assez tardive de ce type de formules.


    Imbert in 2015 seems more cautious that the Imbert of 2013. You can read the rest of the article about the inscription of the assassination of "Utman" ; one can see that Imbert has well understand that is is a contextualization of Quranic topoi.

    At best, these people are not the "caliphs" of Islam, but warlords who have been islamized and canonized as such by the traditional account long time after since they consider that the Quran have one consequence : the conquest.  Or fabricated fakes. To me, the result is the same, as they show one way or another that the traditional account asks questions. Since 2015, there's nothing from Imbert about that stuff.
    All of this is available on academia...

  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #1947 - April 28, 2018, 04:39 PM

    I think your are too speculative, Altara. I say that with all due respect. But to reiterate, I am also skeptical about the nature of the inscription. Shaddel is also a scholar who knows what he talks about. So, I do not see a problem with him writing an article about the topic. Hoyland did also write something so time ago. Al-Jallad wrote about the Yazid inscription and defended its authenticity, so I do not think that he (or any other scholar) is shying away from this topic, to be honest.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #1948 - April 28, 2018, 05:58 PM

    Dear Mahgraye,

    Unfortunately, Shaddel is not a scholar.  It is an amateur. At least, Daniel Beck has a degree in law. In this topic I remark that the top scholars do not engage with it. Meaning dedicate one article as Shaddel does. More, I remark that the commentaries of Imbert even if he displays his faith in the traditional account (the "Prophet Muhammad" everywhere) notes carefully that the "specific" of "Islam" are not indicated on the inscriptions. Each time the story recounted by the traditional account is flawed. It always lacks the Islamic specific details in the positive sources of what could corroborated it.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #1949 - April 29, 2018, 08:16 AM

    Dear Mahgraye,

    Unfortunately, Shaddel is not a scholar.  It is an amateur. At least, Daniel Beck has a degree in law. In this topic I remark that the top scholars do not engage with it. Meaning dedicate one article as Shaddel does[/b][/s]. ...................

        Cheesy Cheesy  That is NOT a   right way to  criticize  a  book or publication  in a  journal  dear  Altara..   .............specially if you are  in  academics..........    We  can criticize the work but it is not right  to neglect the work  and  criticize  the  background of  author    

     with  best regards  
     yeezevee

    Do not let silence become your legacy  
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Previous page 1 ... 63 64 6566 67 ... 279 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »