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


Qur'anic studies today
Today at 09:42 PM

YOU GO GIRL_The atheist w...
Today at 03:27 PM

Pakistan records protest ...
Today at 02:36 PM

ماذا يحدث هذه الايام؟؟؟.
Today at 09:52 AM

NayaPakistan...New Pakist...
Today at 09:32 AM

Staring into an abyss
Yesterday at 04:08 PM

300 "predator priests" ...
August 18, 2018, 03:19 AM

Another Word Game
August 18, 2018, 02:17 AM

Hi everyone
August 17, 2018, 08:16 AM

face veils & Islam back...
August 16, 2018, 02:25 PM

Indonesian here
August 16, 2018, 03:47 AM

Reading Quran And Inquiri...
August 15, 2018, 04:33 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Qur'anic studies today

 (Read 190117 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 73 74 7576 77 ... 111 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2220 - June 13, 2018, 08:45 PM

    What do you think of his dissertation, Altara?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2221 - June 13, 2018, 09:59 PM

    Interesting. I disagree (of course) on some things but I wait the explication for the script. For the moment of my reading (p.37) he does not seem to comprehend that the situation of Arabia Felix is the same as Egypt/Palestine/Iraq ; heavily Christianised. That the Apocrypha of the Ethiopian Bible (Jubilees/Enoch) circulate since ages in those areas. The good point is that he seems to have set aside the narrative.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2222 - June 13, 2018, 11:05 PM

    Your comment about South Arabia fits nicely with my own regarding Jan van Reeth’s findings. Carlos Segovia has also argued for South Arabian influence on Quranic Christology.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2223 - June 14, 2018, 06:32 PM

    Marijn van Putten - Hamzah in the Quranic Consonantal Text

    https://www.academia.edu/35556452/Hamzah_in_the_Quranic_Consonantal_Text._Orientalia_87_1_2018_pp._93-120

    Thread: https://mobile.twitter.com/PhDniX/status/1007286322648756224
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2224 - June 14, 2018, 10:44 PM

    Thread: https://mobile.twitter.com/Safaitic/status/1005389218485547008
    Quote from: Ahmad Al-Jallad
    Stories of a grand Yemeni-Arab exodus following the collapse of the Marib dam are simply mythology. In no other field are legends taken at such face value. The term "Arab" and "Arabic" were appropriated and reimagined by Islamic-period writers to refer to an imagined community of nomads across the Peninsula, the source of all things being Yemen. The Arabia of antiquity and ancient Arabic (not classical Arabic) were fogotten in Islamic-period sources.


    Also: https://mobile.twitter.com/Safaitic/status/1005451140790652928
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2225 - June 15, 2018, 12:16 PM

    Quote
    The Arabia of antiquity and ancient Arabic (not classical Arabic) were forgotten in Islamic-period sources.


    Nope. Jallad still do not understand what happened.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2226 - June 15, 2018, 04:49 PM

    A couple of blog posts here from Marijn van Putten. I think I may have already posted the links but they’re also worth a look for the discussion in the comments, from Al-Jallad as well as van Putten.

    http://phoenixblog.typepad.com/blog/2018/05/some-thoughts-on-the-poetic-koine.html#comments

    http://phoenixblog.typepad.com/blog/2018/05/poetic-arabic-and-dialects.html#comments

    From van Putten’s comments:
    Quote
    Hey Hugo; These answers might have to become a blog post on their own. But let me try to draw the picture.

    Classical commentators: 8th/9th century collectors of the poetry who analysed and explained the meaning and morphology of these poems.

    As for the dialectal situation.

    Muslims account:
    Before Islam everybody spoke a language more or less identical to "Poetic Arabic" with some dialectal variation.

    With the conquests new people started to speak it and this language was corrupted, so that now there were languages spoken close to the vernaculars as we find them today.

    The 'Leiden School' account:
    Before Islam there were already a large variety of forms of Arabic. All of those that we find in the Epigraphic records are very different from Poetic Arabic.

    In the levant we find Safaitic; A form of Arabic with a much reduced case system a h- definite article and has no nunation. Retention of the final triphthongs

    Also Hismaic, which lacks a definite article altogether; retains the *aya final triphthong but seems to have merged the 8awa final triphthong (similar to Quranic Arabic). Likewise appears to have a reduced case system and lost nunation.

    In the Soutern Levant, where the old Nabataean Kingdom used to be we find Nabataean Arabic, which has an unassimilating definite article al-; A functioning case system nom. -o, acc. -a, gen. -i; But lost nunation. During the written history of Nabataean Arabic, we can see a breakdown of its case system taking place. The outcome of this breakdown is however quite different from the outcome that we find in the modern Arabic dialects.

    We find forms of Nabataean Arabic through a large part of the peninsula. But one has to wonder to what extent it was a conventionalized writing style (the contents of such inscriptions are usually just names) or actual evidence that Nabataean was spoken from Syria all the way to Najrān.

    In the Hijaz (although still mostly absent in the Pre-Islamic epigraphic record) there appears to have developed a distinct Arabic dialect which had a reduced case system (but different from the Safaitic, Hismaic or Nabataean system), no nunation, retention of a distinction between the *awa and *aya triphthongs and most notably the loss of the glottal stop/hamzah. This is the language that the Quran is written down in.

    After Islam, this Hijazi Arabic written register becomes very popular, and essentially the written language of the early empire. At some point the literary language that we come to call "Classical Arabic" essentially supplants Hijazi Arabic, at least in literary works around the 9th/10th century.

    The question however is: Where does this Classical Arabic come from? So far we have no evidence for this language in the pre-Islamic record. This might suggest a number of things:

    1. Classical Arabic is the standardized variety of a spoken language that was close to "Poetic Arabic", which existed before Islam, but we are simply looking in the wrong place for its writing, or the language was quite simply unwritten.

    2. Classical Arabic is the standardized variety of a highly archaic intertribal poetic language that we call "Poetic Arabic", which existed -- at the very least -- among the Hijazi Arabic speakers, and the Tamīmī speakers of the east.

    3. A combination of 1. and 2. is also imaginable. "Poetic Arabic" may have been the spoken variety of some tribe, whose written record doesn't exist/we haven't found; Their culture of poetic odes already became so popular before Islam, that other people started composing poetry in that language (with some added dialectisms).

    ===

    Whether there was a "Poetic Koine" or not; One thing is clear: Not all Arabic speakers were part of that poetic culture; and there is very little reason to think that
    1. the Arabic before the Grammatical tradition in the 8th/9th century was trying to approximate that language (usually assumed by Arabists).
    2. the modern dialects can only have developed from dialects that were part of the "Poetic koine" culture (also usually assumed by Arabists).

    It is clear that many dialects cannot be derived directly from Classical Arabic, nor from Hijazi Arabic, or even a single source.

    ===

    What these past two large posts have been about, is trying to figure out some method or approach that could give us more of an insight to what extent the Pre-Islamic poetry is "genuine" and to what extent it represents a single natural language/dialect, or rather a mixed intertribal artificial/poetic register.

    I'm not sure if I have an answer to this yet. But I think the evidence presented in this post speaks in favour of the idea that it indeed was an intertribal poetic register.

    I hope that clears some things up.

    Quote
    Sorry for the long radio silence. Some stuff got in the way.

    @Ed: No I would be inclined to thing Muḥammad existed (although I have no dog in the fight) and that he probably spoke Hijazi Arabic, which I would argue was close/identical to Quranic Arabic but quite different from Classical Arabic.

    I will publish a book on Arabic. Someone can decide to translate it to Arabic later. :-)

    ===

    @Albert

    I'll give a talk about this at IQSA in Denver this year. Let's get some facts straight:

    1. Syriac is a form of Aramaic
    2. There are certainly Aramaic loanwords in the Quran
    3. The Aramaic loanwords in the Quran do not look like they come from Syriac, because the typical features of Syriac are not present in those loanwords.
    4. Hence: If we want to maintain that they are Syriac loanwords, we have to conclude that Syriacists are completely wrong about what Syriac was like in the 7th century. The more plausible explanation, to me, seems to be that the Aramaic that influenced the Quran was a dialect different from Syriac.

    Quote
    No, it's neither. It must be a form of Aramaic that split off from the other known Aramaics somewhere before the 2nd century CE.

    A host of linguistic developments took place in all Aramaics that survived. (Lenition of the stops, loss of vowels in open syllables). Neither of those developments are present in the Arabic of the Quran. So it seems that neither Syriac nor Western Aramaic had influence.

    Instead there seems to have been a third variety, which was typical for the Aramaic that influenced monotheistic South Arabian, Ethiopic and Quranic Arabic, which was much more archaic than Syriac at the time.

    The exact interpretations of those facts are not too clear, but neither variety is likely to have influenced Arabic.

  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2227 - June 15, 2018, 04:56 PM

    Nope. Jallad still do not understand what happened.

    Altara - I’d be interested to know where you disagree with the ‘Leiden School’ (as van Putten refers to it above).
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2228 - June 15, 2018, 08:44 PM

    On Van Putten's thread:

    Great stuff but the mystery seems to be increasing:
    1/ there existed a Quranic Hijazi Arabic for which there is no epigraphic evidence yet,
    2/ there existed a special Quranic Aramaic also not yet found in the historical and epigraphic record.

    I know absence of evidence doesn't mean evidence of absence but absence doesn't prove evidence either. So at least some evidence for the absent elements would help to support the theory...
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2229 - June 16, 2018, 09:29 AM

    Altara - I’d be interested to know where you disagree with the ‘Leiden School’ (as van Putten refers to it above).

    Quote
    Before Islam there were already a large variety of forms of Arabic. All of those that we find in the Epigraphic records are very different from Poetic Arabic.

    Yes. But "Poetic Arabic" is what ? Is it the language that the Quran is written down in ?
    Quote
    During the written history of Nabataean Arabic, we can see a breakdown of its case system taking place. The outcome of this breakdown is however quite different from the outcome that we find in the modern Arabic dialects.

    Idem.
    Quote
    In the Hijaz (1) (although still mostly absent in the Pre-Islamic epigraphic record) there (2)appears to have developed a distinct Arabic dialect which had a reduced case system (but (2)different from the Safaitic, Hismaic or Nabataean system),  This is the language that the Quran is written down in.

    1/At last!
    2/I do not comprehend what is "poetic Arabic", is it the language that the Quran is written down in ?



  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2230 - June 16, 2018, 12:33 PM

    The first link explains van Putten’s use of the term ‘Poetic Arabic’. As I understand it he’s saying that it (i.e. the language that pre-Islamic poetry is assumed to have originally been composed in) may have been the basis for Classical Arabic but definitely not for the Arabic of the Qur’an.

    Quote
    So for the past century or so, the status quo opinion has been that the Quran was composed in a language which has gotten so many different names, that it can be rather confusing: "The ʿArabiyyah/The Pre-Islamic Koine/The Poetic Koine/Classical Arabic/Pre-Classical Arabic, etc. etc." The exact name an authors gives this language kind of depends on the theoretical framework they work from, but for all of the scholars working on this, whatever term they used, they agreed that this meant that the language of the Quran was identical to the language of the Pre-Islamic poetry, which in turn is quite close to the language that we call "Classical Arabic" today. While it is perhaps a terrible idea to introduce yet another term, I'll do it anyway: Let us call this "Poetic Arabic" for now.

    Over the past two years, I have built up the case that the language of the Quran was not composed in Poetic Arabic, but rather a vernacular language -- likely the language spoken in the Hijaz at the time of the revelation. I call this "Quranic Arabic"

    The Quran was previously the only evidence for Poetic Arabic that stemmed unproblematically from the 7th century. Because of its language being identical, it suddenly did not seem unlikely that the pre-Islamic poetry from around the 6th century would also be composed in this period. The poetry itself only gets put into writing about two centuries later, and there is no a priori reason to assume that these are genuinely from that early a period, but the Quran anchored it. With the Quran being composed in a different language, that anchor has now been lifted.

    Quote
    The absence of a language identical or close to Poetic Arabic in the pre-Islamic epigraphic record need not mean that a form of Arabic with a functioning case and mood system did not exist at all as a spoken language in the 6th and early 7th century. The modern Najdi dialects developed from a branch of language which at least had tanwīn, something that Quranic Arabic had already lost by that time. The fact that the medieval grammarians saw the best Arabic to come from the eastern dialects (i.e. Central Arabia/Najdi tribes), and that even today the oral poetic traditions of these dialects retain meters similar to Poetic Arabic poetry, where word-final consonants, at least in some contexts are treated as if they are followed by final short vowels (= the case/mood vowels) is a tantalizing indication that there is something going on in these eastern dialects.

    As it stands, however, nothing that is even remotely like Poetic Arabic has shown up yet in the Pre-Islamic epigraphic record; and it perhaps never will. We do not know if the ancestral language of the Najdi dialects had a writing system, and its silence in the epigraphic record might suggest that they didn't. But alternatively, we might simply be looking in the wrong place or we haven't looked yet.

    What is clear, however, is that the variety was not used for writing (and presumably also not for speaking, or even poetry) along the Hijaz, and the Levant, where forms of Arabic have been found, none of which look like Poetic Arabic.

    But that Poetic Arabic was not a spoken language in, e.g. the Hijaz around the time of the Islamic revelation, does not mean it wasn't a Epic Greek-like special inter-tribal poetic register. The Islamic tradition certainly gives us the impression that this was the case. There is a great collection of Pre-Islamic and early Islamic poetry attributed to different tribes, and they all display more-or-less the same language. However, there are two issues that need to be addressed before we can start to develop the idea of Poetic Arabic as an inter-tribal archaic poetic register. First there is the problem of classicization, and second there is the issue of authenticity.

    Pre-Islamic poetry was only really recorded in the 2nd and 3rd Islamic centuries as part of an effort of codifying a high language which would then become "Classical Arabic". Clearly these codifying efforts must have had a rather homogenizing effect -- and comparing the linguistic features of pre-Islamic poetry to the Quranic reading traditions, or even the descriptions of the early Arabic Grammarians such as Sibawayh, give the impression that the pre-Islamic poetry must have been heavily classicized, and the apparent linguistic unity and the similarity of Poetic Arabic to Classical Arabic might be completely an artifact of the grammatical tradition. An argument I tried to make in my IQSA blogpost. If there was an inter-tribal poetic register, it seems likely that there was considerable (but probably not insurmountable) dialectal variation within this register.

    The issue of authenticity is one that I am not sure how to go about answering. If we blindly trust the Islamic tradition, we must believe that people close to the prophet indeed composed poems in Poetic Arabic -- a language which they almost certainly did not speak as their first language. But why should we trust these accounts? The poetry was written down much later, and considering the enormous amount of status Poetic arabic cum Classical Arabic comes to acquire around the time these texts get recorded, combined with the belief that the Quraysh spoke impeccable Arabic and that the Quran was revealed in the language of the Quraysh make any of these attributions somewhat suspicious.

    This does not mean that the poems composed in Poetic Arabic contain no authentic references to Pre-Islamic Arabia, they certainly do (see my IQSA blogpost for one such an example); But just because the poems might be authentically pre-Islamic need not mean that all poems attributed to the pre-Islamic and early Islamic period are to be attributed to the authors they are attributed to, nor even that the whole of the poems are authentically pre-Islamic. This is an element which surprisingly often gets overlooked by people who want to think of Poetic Arabic as a "Poetic Koine". If Zwettler is correct that Poetic Arabic really was, like Epic Greek, a formulaic poetic register with a tradition that trained poets could draw upon to semi-recall/semi-improvise the "Epic" Poems, it is perfectly possible that poems that were composed in the second century could still contain figures of speech that date back hundreds of years. This is exactly what we find in the Homeric epics, verses that are evidently extremely ancient, more ancient than even the events, e.g. the Iliad talks about, side-by-side with verses that must post-date the events described in the Iliad by hundreds of years still (due to the mentioning of materials that did no exist yet, etc.).

    That there is some amount of authenticity and ancientness to these poems at the time that they get written down, however, is clear because they people writing commentaries on the meanings of the poems seem to often be completely clueless about some elements of their meaning, while within the context of the poem, it seems quite clear that the composed was aware of their meaning.

    Quote
    Let us grant that Poetic Arabic was indeed a intertribal archaic register that enjoyed considerable cultural prestige. This still would not mean that the written language of the early Islamic period, nor the language of the Quran would also automatically be in that language. Among Arabists, there seems to have been a consistent idea that if there was a literary register for poetry, this would automatically dictate that this would have become the written language. This of course does not follow at all. One need only look at the literary languages of ancient Greece, none of which were similar, or even particularly close to Epic Greek nor was that the standard they were aiming for. Examining the early Islamic papyri and inscriptions, it is linguistically very similar to Quranic Arabic and, in fact, to literary Christian Arabic -- but rather further removed from Poetic Arabic. Only when the Arab grammarians set out to codify the Classical Arabic language, we start to see a noticeable change in the language used, at least in literary works (non-literary texts certainly lag behind, and early Christian Arabic does not seem to evidently make the adjustment any time soon pace Blau, who seems to think Christian deviations from Classical Arabic are just failed attempts to write Classical Arabic rather than succesful attempts to write the pre-Classical literary register). The fact that pre-Grammarian copies of works such as Ibn Wahb's Hadith collection on Papyrus are decidedly pre-Classical in orthography and language, clearly show that the crystallization of this language, even in literary works only took place due to the efforts of the grammarians.

  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2231 - June 16, 2018, 02:40 PM

    Quote
    The first link explains van Putten’s use of the term ‘Poetic Arabic’. As I understand it he’s saying that it (i.e. the language of pre-Islamic poetry) may have been the basis for Classical Arabic but definitely not for the Arabic of the Qur’an.


    Yes, but this ‘Poetic Arabic’ before Islam is (scientifically) validated by what before Islam? Nothing. This affirmation that it existed (before Islam) ‘Poetic Arabic’ from a scientific side is a conjecture, nothing else.
    The problem is that Van Putten et al. believe that there was a  ‘Poetic Arabic’ before Islam. They follow and believe that because they believe what the Muslim grammarians say that it existed. Because they (Van Putten et al.) believe that the Muslim narrative is historical whereas it is not and that the grammarians know better than them. It is not the case, the grammarians know nothing. Why the grammarians say that? Because  the Muslim grammarians f*ing* need to determine what is the language of the Quran, in the paradigm of the Muslim narrative to which they believe as "what has really happened" and nothing else. So they explain this language by an hypothetical ‘Poetic Arabic’ because they have nothing else for explaining it. Thus they have a rationale (Arabs and Persians are rationales) explication of the origin of Quranic language.  Thus they are happy and this explication become the official explication of the language of the Quran. End of story.

    Therefore Van Putten is right to say :
    Quote
    , but for all of the scholars working on this, whatever term they used, they agreed that this meant that the language of the Quran was identical to the language of the Pre-Islamic poetry

    But all of this is wrong. The language of the Quran has nothing to see with what the Muslim grammarians explain.
    Van Putten has comprehended that
    But  he still believes in the Poetic Arabic before Islam! :
    Quote
    The Quran was previously the only evidence for Poetic Arabic that stemmed unproblematically from the 7th century.

    But :
    Quote
    Over the past two years, I have built up the case that the language of the Quran was not composed in Poetic Arabic, but rather a vernacular language -- likely the language spoken in the Hijaz at the time of the revelation. I call this "Quranic Arabic"

    At last!
     But he's doing it again. with the f* Hijaz and revelation! Whereas he has the f* proofs that all what say the grammarians is  factually wrong! It's the shrink hospital! He has the proofs and he f* continues to talk about Hijaz, Poetic Arabic, and revelation!
    Of course the Quran was not composed in Poetic Arabic, of course, because there is no f* Poetic Arabic before Islam! Or if it existed, he has nothing to see with the Quran. No need to be a linguist to comprehend that : there is no (scientific) validation of an existence of Poetic Arabic.
    The point is that :

    Quote
    Examining the early Islamic papyri and inscriptions, it is linguistically very similar to Quranic Arabic and, in fact, to literary Christian Arabic --


    Where is spoke this Christian Arabic?

    Palestine. Nowhere else (to my knowledge).
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2232 - June 16, 2018, 03:43 PM

    Thanks Altara. I think I can see your argument clearer now.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2233 - June 16, 2018, 03:58 PM

    And what is yours?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2234 - June 16, 2018, 04:26 PM

    I’m not sure how far I’ve really got an argument...

    I don’t really see much reason to think that there wasn’t a historical Muhammad who was some kind of religious and political leader, probably in Yathrib/Medina. Beyond that I’m not sure there’s much to rely on in the traditional narrative.

    I don’t have a problem with Al-Jallad’s and Van Putten’s view that the language of the Qur’an was based on a specific spoken dialect. This may well have been a dialect from the Hijaz but I don’t think they have demonstrated that this is necessarily the case. Maybe more research on the epigraphy would produce evidence one way or the other.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2235 - June 16, 2018, 04:26 PM

    Altara,

    I believe in Van Putten's theory there are 2 options to explain the emergence of Classical Arabic:

    1/Some obscure isolated tribe unconnected with Quran spoke CAr (and also was the basis of poetic Arabic which goes hand in hand with Classical Arabic). This dialect was used for an obscure reason as the basis of Car centuries after redaction of Quran.

    Or

    2/CAr is a synthetic construct (his least prefered option)

    On top of that the Quran is composed in a dialect that has nothing to do with CAr and has left practically no epigraphic trail but for sure was alive and kicking in the Hijaz early 6C (outside of the ex-Nabatean realm).

    Problem are the many dialects that are unattested for (the absence of evidence argument is very frequently used...)
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2236 - June 16, 2018, 04:34 PM

    Zeca,

    I don’t have a problem with Al-Jallad’s and Van Putten’s view that the language of the Qur’an was based on a specific spoken dialect. This may well have been a dialect from the Hijaz but I don’t think they have demonstrated that this is necessarily the case. Maybe more research on the epigraphy would produce evidence one way or the other.


    Indeed evidence for this Quranic dialect in the Hijaz seems to be the "missing link".Both Van Putten and Al Jallad are positive Quranic arabic cannot come from the more Northern Nabatean area. I hope they focus more on proving this impossibility because all other elements seem to be pointing to this area as the geographical origin of the Quran.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2237 - June 17, 2018, 02:41 PM

    Quote from: mundi
    Indeed evidence for this Quranic dialect in the Hijaz seems to be the "missing link".Both Van Putten and Al Jallad are positive Quranic arabic cannot come from the more Northern Nabatean area.


    Nor the Northern (Arabic) Nabatean area, nor the South. Van Putten alludes to an influence through a kind of "Old Aramaic" which could be linked  to a "Christian Arabic" similar to the Quranic text. The only one I know is  from Palestine.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2238 - June 17, 2018, 04:26 PM

    There must have been dialect variation in the spoken language within the Nabatean area. Without more evidence I don’t see any reason to exclude the possibility that the written Arabic of the Qur’an was based on a dialect from somewhere further north than the Hijaz.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2239 - June 17, 2018, 04:52 PM

    An old thread from Ian David Morris. His argument seems reasonable to me.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/iandavidmorris/status/562334708500291586
    Quote
    @iandavidmorris what's your position on Makkah's locality?

    There are a few interesting strands to this question. Let me unpick them.
    1. I don't buy that the *name* Makkah was relocated from the north. The evidence is too slim.
    2. The qiblah was not fixed on Makkah until the 8th century. Makkah's primacy emerged slowly.
    3. The Qur'an better reflects a Levantine setting; at least, it 'looks' northward. Any connexion with Makkah is tenuous.
    4. It's likely, then, that scenes from Muhammad's life were remapped onto Makkah as it came to prominence.

    @iandavidmorris my question would be that such a huge change...surely it would have caused a huge schism?  Do we have evidence of this?

    I'd see it rather as a mass of popular stories that converge slowly on the place that more and more seems their natural setting.There was a tug-of-war between Makkah and Madinah, each claiming him for a longer period. Other contenders may simply have given up.

    @iandavidmorris was the hijra a historical event? Seems important to base a calendar around it

    Yes, sort of. Foundation of a new society at Yathrib by migrants (muhajirun) is attested by the Constitution of Medina.

    @iandavidmorris if so, would it not make sense for mecca to have been closer to medina? Else why did medinans call for M?

    1. The narrative that M. was invited to Yathrib to end the anarchy is convenient but not convincing.
    2. Especially since the sources are unsure whether there was really anarchy, or a strong monarchy (Meccan Trade 217-8).
    3. Besides, sacred geography is informed by vivid stories and symbols; it's not particularly rational.
    4. That's why people have believed Peter went to Rome and Jesus went to America. The geography is myth-driven.

    But as we'd expect, history passed through oral literature before reaching us. It's gripping narrative but bad history.

  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2240 - June 17, 2018, 08:39 PM

    There must have been dialect variation in the spoken language within the Nabatean area. Without more evidence I don’t see any reason to exclude the possibility that the written Arabic of the Qur’an was based on a dialect from somewhere further north than the Hijaz.


    Van Putten explains that linguistically (his field speciality) the Northern (Arabic) Nabatean ( further north than the Hijaz) area has nothing to see with the Quranic Arabic.  He talk about  the language of course. He does not even allude to South Arabian. He is very clear about this. I tend to trust qualified people especially when they are believer of the narrative, and that their scientific skills are able to change their mind (in this case about the Quranic Arabic which does not correspond to the Northern (Arabic) Nabatean area.) For a believer of the narrative, it is very interesting because he scientifically realizes slowly but surely that the narrative is not reliable. And if he is not reliable for this, the rest poses of course question.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2241 - June 17, 2018, 08:49 PM

    Quote
    1. I don't buy that the *name* Makkah was relocated from the north. The evidence is too slim.
    2. The qiblah was not fixed on Makkah until the 8th century. Makkah's primacy emerged slowly.
    3. The Qur'an better reflects a Levantine setting; at least, it 'looks' northward. Any connexion with Makkah is tenuous.
    4. It's likely, then, that scenes from Muhammad's life were remapped onto Makkah as it came to prominence.


    1/ I do not comprehend what that mean.
    2/ Logic, there's no Makkah before Islam
    3/Connexion with Makkah (in the "Hijaz") does not exist before Islam. Except in Quranic words.
    4/ As there is no Makkah, there is no "Muhammad" except in Quranic words ; as I already said it seems hardly plausible that no traces anywhere mention the story of an Arab who speak to the Biblical God regularly during 20 years, in the Late Antique Orient as we know it.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2242 - June 17, 2018, 09:11 PM

    Quote
    An old thread from Ian David Morris. His argument seems reasonable to me.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/iandavidmorris/status/562334708500291586

    1/ ....................
    2/......................
    3/Connexion with Makkah (in the "Hijaz") does not exist before Islam. Except in Quranic words.
    4/ ..........................

    1/ ...........................................
    2/......................
    3/ ................... Except in Quranic words.
     


    I even question that.,   and  question your answer 3 dear  Altara., No  Quran verse has that word "Makkah"  in it

    I considered  Mecca  of Islam   as   "Makkatu l-Mukarramah"  or Umm al-Qurā   which essentially means "Mother of all settlements"  

    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 #2243 - June 17, 2018, 10:05 PM

    I see I posted up that Morris link before. Here’s  Zaotar’s comment: https://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=27568.msg804842#msg804842
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2244 - June 17, 2018, 10:46 PM

    I even question that.,   and  question your answer 3 dear  Altara., No  Quran verse has that word "Makkah"  in it

    I considered  Mecca  of Islam   as   "Makkatu l-Mukarramah"  or Umm al-Qurā   which essentially means "Mother of all settlements"  


    1/ Muhammad is not a name : see the post about the Dome.
    2/ Makkatu  is supposed to be Makkah in the Hijaz. (48,24)
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2245 - June 17, 2018, 10:47 PM

    I see I posted up that Morris link before. Here’s  Zaotar’s comment: https://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=27568.msg804842#msg804842


    Is Morris agree with Zaotar?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2246 - June 17, 2018, 11:37 PM

    Quote
    Muhammad is not a name: see the post about the Dome.


    Please elaborate. How is it not a name and what is the significance of the Dome of the Rock?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2247 - June 18, 2018, 05:50 AM

     Your quote Altara:

    Quote
    Van Putten explains that linguistically (his field speciality) the Northern (Arabic) Nabatean ( further north than the Hijaz) area has nothing to see with the Quranic Arabic.


    I think it would be good that Van Putten expands on why he cuts the link with Northern origin of Quranic Arabic, even to the length of "imagening"a Hijazi dialect.. As Zeca says, there must have been quite some variablilty in dialects all around. Plus: we don't have that much early 6th C epigraphic Nabatean evidence.

    Maybe letting go of the Hijazi option is  a giant leap for islamicists and it needs more time?

    On Morris:

    If he indeed thinks Mecca is a later construct, why not just have a tiny look at Gibson's list of early mosques instead of looking down on him and ignoring all his work?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2248 - June 18, 2018, 07:29 AM

    Is Morris agree with Zaotar?

  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2249 - June 18, 2018, 08:19 AM

    Your quote Altara:

    I think it would be good that Van Putten expands on why he cuts the link with Northern origin of Quranic Arabic, even to the length of "imagening"a Hijazi dialect.. As Zeca says, there must have been quite some variablilty in dialects all around. Plus: we don't have that much early 6th C epigraphic Nabatean evidence.

    http://phoenixblog.typepad.com/blog/2018/05/poetic-arabic-and-dialects.html


  • Previous page 1 ... 73 74 7576 77 ... 111 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »