Luxenberg's critique
M.S.M. Saifullah
"Islamic Awareness" website has added the article "From Alphonse Mingana
To Christoph Luxenberg: Arabic Script & The Alleged Syriac Origins Of The
Qur'an". Please follow the link:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/vowel.html
This is a working document and more material would be added, insha'allah,
in the future. All comments to con...@islamic-awareness.org
Wassalam
Saifullah
Denis Giron
> "Islamic Awareness" website has added the article
> "From Alphonse Mingana To Christoph Luxenberg:
> Arabic Script & The Alleged Syriac Origins Of The
> Qur'an". Please follow the link:
>
> http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/vowel.html
I just started reading this very interesting article, and have a few
thoughts. Maybe, however, this portion of the discussion should be held
in a newsgroup like sci.lang?
In response to Luxenberg's claim that at the time the Qur'an was being
formed, Arabic was not a written language, the article first calls to
witness the Raqush inscription as an example of a very early Arabic
inscription:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/raqush.html
On the second line, the second character of the first word *looks* like
the Syriac reysh (with the dot above) - equivalent to the Arabic raa.
However, on the third line, the third character of the first word seems
to be the exact same character, yet here it is treated as a daal (the
equivalent of the Aramaic/Hebrew dalet). How was the conclusion reached
that these are two different characters? They look like the same
character to me. The same character seems to appear yet again at the
start of the eighth (i.e. second to last) line, yet there it is treated
as a thaal (i.e. the 9th character of the Arabic alif-baa; looks like a
daal with a dot above it). I'm no expert, but I'm curious about this
possibly being a rather inconsistent treatment of a single character.
For another example, look at what is either two characters or one that
start the first line. It is simply treated as a thaal, yet it is wholly
different from the above-mentioned character starting the eighth line
that is also treated as a thaal. Look at the third character of the
first word of the second line. There, something very similar looking is
treated as a thaa (which would be roughly equivalent to the last
character of the Aramaic and Hebrew alphabets). In fact, looking at the
third character of the first word of the second line, as well as the
last character of the second word on the fifth line (or the last
character of the first word of the last/ninth line), it seems the best
conclusion is that the first line does not simply start with a thaal,
but rather two characters: either thaa-ha or taa-ha (i.e. the
equivalents of the 22nd/last and 5th characters of the Aramaic and
Hebrew alphabets: tav and heh).
Furthermore, the attempt to differentiate the shin and sin seems
dubious to me (as the characters dont look terribly different).
This article on the Raqush inscription does not give an author, but the
original articled linked to by Dr. Sayfullaah above lists himself,
Mohamed Ghounem and Shibli Zaman as authors. I'm guessing Shibli is the
most capable of the three in the area of deciphering possibly Aramaic
scripts, so perhaps he can give his thoughts on this? While I admit
that the Raqush inscription was not a major crux of the original
article, it was called to witness, and the (alleged) problems listed
show that further discussion is needed. From this very cursory look at
the inscription, it seems to have a very Aramaic feel to it. The
article itself notes that it has alternatively been called (1)
"Nabataean", (2) "Nabataean" with "many Arabisms," (3) "an eccentric
mixture of Nabataean and Arabic," or (4) "an Arabic text with Aramaic
archaisms". That seems to show in itself that before the advent of
Islam a tedency to blend Aramaic and Aramic was not unheard of (though
admittedly the date assigned to this inscription makes it significantly
older than the Qur'an and thus possibly entirely outside of whatever
genre or milieu the Qur'an was borne out of).
As I said, I just started reading Dr. Sayfallaah's article, and this is
a minor point, but I thought I'd raise some questions with the hopes of
igniting further discussion.
-Denis Giron
http://lubienski.com/freethoughtmecca
M.S.M. Saifullah
> http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/raqush.html
>
> On the second line, the second character of the first word *looks* like
> the Syriac reysh (with the dot above) - equivalent to the Arabic raa.
> However, on the third line, the third character of the first word seems
> to be the exact same character, yet here it is treated as a daal (the
> equivalent of the Aramaic/Hebrew dalet). How was the conclusion reached
> that these are two different characters? They look like the same
> character to me. The same character seems to appear yet again at the
Raqush inscriptions is in the Arabic script with a strong imprint of
Nabataean.
If you look at the article by John Healey (ref. 21 in the article), an
expert on Nabataean, Arabic and Syriac inscriptions, you will find that in
fact "d" and "r" are written in the same way and both of them without
dots. The only instances when dots appear in the Nabataean script to
differentiate the two letters and to represent "d" is in the years 267 and
355 CE. Year 267 correspond to the Raqush inscription.
In the Palmyrene-Syriac-North Mesopotamian tradition, diacritics are
early, the earliest instance being in 2nd century CE showing diacritic on
"r". The earliest instance of differentiating "r" and "d" in Syriac
manuscripts dates from 411 CE; perhaps reflecting the usage seen in
the Nabataean script. How far back it goes back in Syriac is uncertain.
The Syriac incantation bowls of uncertain date also show this
differentiation.
> show that further discussion is needed. From this very cursory look at
> the inscription, it seems to have a very Aramaic feel to it. The
Nabataean is nothing but a dialect of Aramaic. So, does that surprise you
to see the Aramaic "feel" to it? And Arabic script originated from
Aramaic.
> archaisms". That seems to show in itself that before the advent of
> Islam a tedency to blend Aramaic and Aramic was not unheard of (though
> admittedly the date assigned to this inscription makes it significantly
> older than the Qur'an and thus possibly entirely outside of whatever
> genre or milieu the Qur'an was borne out of).
Arabs were Nabataeans, who used the Nabataean script to write Arabic and
Nabataeo-Aramaic. It is the Nabataean milieu that can successfully explain
the origin of Arabic script, classical Arabic as well as the
socio-historic context of rise of Islam. Shibli and I were discussing
numerous instances where Nabataeans are mentioned in the Islamic
literature. There is an interesting mention of Quryash being originally
Nabataeans... something that Shibli and I are looking into currently.
If you would read rest of the article, you would get most of the answers,
if not all.
Regards
Saifullah
M.S.M. Saifullah
> > Arabs were Nabataeans, who used the Nabataean script to write Arabic and
>
> Nabataeans were Arabs not vice versa.
Yusuf, you are partly right. My mistake due to hurry. Nabataeans were
Arabs. The people of Oman are nabatised Arabs and the people of Bahrain
are arabicised Nabataeans. This is what is mentioned in Islamic literaty
sources.
> not neccessarily "classical arabic". Nabataeans may have lent prestige
> to the al- article variety of North Arabian but little else can be
> said. the former Nabataean area was not the favorite area where
> medieval philologists got the usages of their informants (i.e.
> bedouins). in fact, them labeling an arabic word or usage as "nabaTiyy"
> was not very complimentary. nabaTiyy refered to the speech of the
> aramaeanized sedentary arab north. that speech may have had more a role
> in the development of the modern colloquials than in that of Fusha
> (classical arabic).
When I said that the Nabataean milieu can successfully explain the
existence of Classical Arabic, I meant it from the point of view of what
is seen in the inscriptions, especially those inscriptions that are
written in Nabataean script but are actually in Classical Arabic.
The term "nabatiy" was used as compliment and otherwise.
> there are instances of the al- article in the south semitic script
> inscriptions (why no mention of them? the map of inth ewebsite is as if
> the arabian peninsula was a blank as far as arabic was concerned!),
> including one in the southern center of the Kinda around the beginning
> of the common era.
Well, the article is about alleged Syro-Aramaic origins of the Qur'an. If
I start to include other South Semitic script inscriptions, I would never
be able to finish the article. The subject of inscriptions is huge. Just
to plot the Syriac inscriptions from pre-Islamic times took me two weeks
of continuous work. I am not finished with Nabataean inscriptions
completely. As I have said in the update that it is a working document. I
will refine the arguments as people make comments and critique. But my
opinion is that the major part of the argument is already there.
> > socio-historic context of rise of Islam. Shibli and I were discussing
> > numerous instances where Nabataeans are mentioned in the Islamic
> > literature. There is an interesting mention of Quryash being originally
>
> I would doubt that.
It is not clear to me what you doubt. Nabataean milieu of rise of
Islam? Or is it the mention of Nabataeans in Islamic literature? Or
Quraysh being originally from Nabataeans?
Wassalam
Saifullah
ghali
Denis the arguments that you put forward look on particulars at the
expense of the whole. No doubt the diacretical marks on the inscription
are inconsistent. It does not follow though, that one can remain
undecided about what the inscriptions say. As an arab now I can read
words that do not have diacretical marks, by looking at context and the
form of the letters alone.
In other words Denis if the inscriptions at the points of dispute do
not say what they say, what alternative readings are there?
Yours is a mute point!
Where is your post on the trinity article Denis?
Ghali
Yusuf B Gursey
> On Fri, 17 Jun 2005, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>
> > > Arabs were Nabataeans, who used the Nabataean script to write Arabic and
> >
> > Nabataeans were Arabs not vice versa.
>
> Yusuf, you are partly right. My mistake due to hurry. Nabataeans were
> Arabs. The people of Oman are nabatised Arabs and the people of Bahrain
> are arabicised Nabataeans. This is what is mentioned in Islamic literaty
since the Nabataeans were Arabs, arabicised Nabataeans doesn't make
sense,
and no, the Omanis are not nabatised Arabs (arabized South Arabians
does
make sense) since the Nabataeans did not go that far south. similarly
for Bahrain (I assume you mean in the early Islamic sense of the Gulf
coast of Arabia).
this may refer to the influence of the Lakhmids, a later pre-islamic
persian satelite arab kingdom in the desert and steppe areas of middle
and southern Iraq. they were also in contact with aramaic - syraic
civilization. similarly the Ghassanids in greater Syria. arab sources
frequently refer to these partially aramaeanized arabs, as well as
their aramaic subjects under the general lable of nabaTiyy "nabataean".
the Kinda (see below), a kingdom briefly appearing in the arabian
peninsula
adopted classical arabic as an official language and thus were
intstrumental
in spreading it.
> sources.
why quote them if they are wrong? or misleading? or if they are writing
as northern arabs propaganda for their tribe?
>
> > not neccessarily "classical arabic". Nabataeans may have lent prestige
> > to the al- article variety of North Arabian but little else can be
> > said. the former Nabataean area was not the favorite area where
> > medieval philologists got the usages of their informants (i.e.
> > bedouins). in fact, them labeling an arabic word or usage as "nabaTiyy"
> > was not very complimentary. nabaTiyy refered to the speech of the
> > aramaeanized sedentary arab north. that speech may have had more a role
> > in the development of the modern colloquials than in that of Fusha
> > (classical arabic).
>
> When I said that the Nabataean milieu can successfully explain the
> existence of Classical Arabic, I meant it from the point of view of what
> is seen in the inscriptions, especially those inscriptions that are
> written in Nabataean script but are actually in Classical Arabic.
fine, but there are also inscriptions in classical arabic in
the "Musnad" (South Semitic script) script as far south as Faw.
>
> The term "nabatiy" was used as compliment and otherwise.
>
> > there are instances of the al- article in the south semitic script
> > inscriptions (why no mention of them? the map of inth ewebsite is as if
> > the arabian peninsula was a blank as far as arabic was concerned!),
> > including one in the southern center of the Kinda around the beginning
> > of the common era.
>
> Well, the article is about alleged Syro-Aramaic origins of the Qur'an. If
but if the contention is that of the "Syro-Aramaic origins of the
Qur'an"
why blow this out of all propertion and skip an important source of the
history of Arabic? unlees you are merely amending the title to
the "Western-Aramaic origins of the Qur'an" (!). the contention of
Luxenberg and some crackpots following him is that since the
only (which is wrong) evidence of early arabic is in the poorly read
early script (or its Nabataean precursor), most of Arabic is merely
a misreading of this script, which originally represented a "mixture
of arabic and aramaic" (actually you can have aramaic with arabic
loanwords or arabic with aramaic loanwords. you can't have a "mixed
salad")
of the two. the Musnad inscriptions are a concrete counterargument.
they
are much more clearer than the Nabataean or early arabic ones, and they
show the complete consonantal phonemic inventory of Arabic.
one can also argue, without the evidence of Musnad, that literacy was
confined to the arab north, leaving Arabia blank in terms of written
materials, which is untrue. moreover, they are graffiti, inidcating
that
literacy was no the exclusive doamin of royalty and the like. so
although many (but not all) of these differ from classical arabic to
some extant (chiefly in the definite article), they are by tribes
counted
as arabs. they are an important rebutal to many fringe theories. OTOH
Nevo had posed the question (in support of hsi theories) as to why a
script in soem respects superior was given up for what was initially
less adapted to arabic. IMHO the answer is the collapse of South
Arabian
civilization and the subsequent orientation of Arabia to the north,.
and while you are at it, why don't you give publicize the URL
of Simon Hopkins' criticism of Luxenberg.
I personally had a discussion in ARI where someone claimed that
arabic (i)bn "son" was just a misreading of "syro-aramaic"
bar (the poster failed to take into account just what type
of natural human language would not have an independent oral tradition
for "son"). I pointed out that /bn/ was attested in south semitic
script inscriptions (this is simple, direct, hard evidence). the
poster didn't know what I was talking about and left the thread
in huff.
> I start to include other South Semitic script inscriptions, I would never
> be able to finish the article. The subject of inscriptions is huge. Just
just a few would suffice. like the inscription at Faw. and some cross
hatching or shading in the map indicating the general areas in where
these are found.
see "Nemara and Faw" A. Beeston BSOAS vol. 42 p. 1-6
(1979) (IIRC available on-line for university subscribers)
some details were posted in:
From: y...@theworld.com (Yusuf B Gursey)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam
Subject: Re: Namara inscription
Date: 18 Aug 2004 01:25:08 GMT
Message-ID: <222ae656.04081...@posting.google.com>
the inscription at Faw, belonging to the Kinda, also
refutes Taha Husayn's false argument that the poet Imru' al-Qays
is a fabrication (and by implication pre-islamic poetry in general)
because the Kinda (he was a Kinda prince) were Southern Arabs,
and ergo (mixing them up with South Arabians) could not have spoken
classical arabic. in fact, the inscription is in the al- dialect (like
classical arabic) and not in any other North Arabian idiom.
> to plot the Syriac inscriptions from pre-Islamic times took me two weeks
> of continuous work. I am not finished with Nabataean inscriptions
> completely. As I have said in the update that it is a working document. I
> will refine the arguments as people make comments and critique. But my
> opinion is that the major part of the argument is already there.
>
I can't see it from your post. you only make the point that the arabic
script did not originate not from Syriac, which is fine that is
correct.
it was a theory before Luxenberg and refuted (there was an (IIRC JSS)
article about that. also that the arabic script originated from the
Nabataean script. OK. that there was some doting before Islam, that's
interesting and relevant. but blowing out of proportion the role of
the Nabataeans doesn't help the more general point that you are trying
to make.
> > > socio-historic context of rise of Islam. Shibli and I were discussing
> > > numerous instances where Nabataeans are mentioned in the Islamic
> > > literature. There is an interesting mention of Quryash being originally
> >
> > I would doubt that.
>
> It is not clear to me what you doubt. Nabataean milieu of rise of
the Nabataeans themselves were no longer around at the time. south
arabian civilzation declined during the 6th century and collapsed
towards the end of it. that left the successor northern arabs (there
was fresh migration from the peninsula, so these were less overtly
aramaeanized then the Nabataeans. there is an Islamic tradition,
which rings true, that the Lakhmids spread the Arabic script
in the Arabian peninsula. specifically the lakhmids became nominal
overlords inthe Arabian penisula (on behalf of Persia, until Persia
shortsightedly put an end to their quasi-independent existence).
Syria, hence the Ghassanids was the principle trading partner
of Mecca and environs, as we ar told, hence su:q al-'anba:T
i.e. "market of the nabataeans" in Medina (EI2)
> Islam? Or is it the mention of Nabataeans in Islamic literature? Or
words of aramaic origin in the Qur'an are found for these reasons:
- arabs had contact with aramaeans since antiquity.
- the infuence of the nabataeans
- the influence of the Ghassanids and Lakhmids
- the use of syriac in eastern christianity
- the use of judeo-aramaic in judaism.
- aramaic through other languages
aramaic was an important language, especially for arabs of the
two great monotheistic religions so, its influence in the
langauge of islam is natural. after all, these were among
the natural audience of the Qur'an. there is also
specualtion of use of palestinian aramaic by "jewish
christians" (thought by some to have existed in the area
at the time). so religious terminology was presented
in a manner intelligible to these groups.
but also south arabian and ethioipic were languages of
christians of the area, and south arabian of jews,
and possibly of local monotheistic experiments (the Hanifs)
as well. so there south arabian or ethiopic terms refering
to christian concepts (such as Hawa:riyy "Apostle of Jesus",
from Ethiopic) or aramaic terms coming via these languages.
these are rebuttals to the "syro-aramaic reading", and these place
the Qur'an where it is said to have originated (not
Mesopotamia or Syria as some fringe theories propose).
as a side note, Hawa:ri: was used for "Apostle" in the
film "Passion of Christ", but AFAIK this is probably neo-syriac,
a loan from arabic, classical syriac has AFAIK *sh*liHa: ,
christian arabic rasu:l (greek Apostle also translates muslim
rasu:l in early islamic translations of islamic formulae into
greek. someone knwoldgeable in syriac pelase confirm or
critisize.
through Lakhmid influence on the language of the area, there are
also persian words in the Qur'an. the Qur'an was meant to be
unterstood and these words were part of the arabic speech of
that place and time.
> Quraysh being originally from Nabataeans?
well, OK, quSayy, an ancestor of Muhammad was said
to have come from a "Nabataenized people" (qawm
mutanabbiTu:n), so in Enc. of Islam II "Nabat".
he helped establish the dominance of the Quraysh
and reformed the idolaterous cult and is said to
have returned from an exile in greater Syria.
well, hubal and mana:t are accepted as idols
of the northern arabs. but in Mecca there was
also for example, Shams, the solar goddess,
cf. `abdu-*sh*ams of the Quraysh, and reports of
a solar dominating the Ka`ba in pagan times. Shams
is regarded as a typically South Arabian diety.
so "Nabataean" influence was not the only influence
in pagan Mecca.
>
> Wassalam
> Saifullah
>
> http://www.islamic-awareness.org/
M.S.M. Saifullah
Assalamu-alaykum wa rahamatullah:
Yusuf, thanks for your message. At least it made me see the argument is a
completely different viewpoint and that is good! I only have some comments
to make.
> why quote them if they are wrong? or misleading? or if they are writing
> as northern arabs propaganda for their tribe?
I do not know if it is propaganda. The way I saw it was a simple statement
about Arabs of certain parts of Arabian peninsula.
> > When I said that the Nabataean milieu can successfully explain the
> > existence of Classical Arabic, I meant it from the point of view of what
> > is seen in the inscriptions, especially those inscriptions that are
> > written in Nabataean script but are actually in Classical Arabic.
>
> fine, but there are also inscriptions in classical arabic in
> the "Musnad" (South Semitic script) script as far south as Faw.
I will have a look at them, insha'allah. Give me some time as I will be
off to Singapore/India for three weeks. I hope to look at them with a
fresh mind when I back, insha'allah. I am certainly aware of South Semitic
inscriptions but they do not seem to feature a lot in the literature.
> > Well, the article is about alleged Syro-Aramaic origins of the Qur'an. If
>
> but if the contention is that of the "Syro-Aramaic origins of the
> Qur'an"
> why blow this out of all propertion and skip an important source of the
> history of Arabic? unlees you are merely amending the title to
> the "Western-Aramaic origins of the Qur'an" (!). the contention of
If you look at the article carefully, I said that much, if not all, the
socio-historic rise of Islam can be explained with reasonable success
using the Nabataean milieu. This includes the origins of Arabic script,
the existence of classical Arabic in pre-Islamic times, the worship of
many of the gods and goddesses by Arabs that were also Nabataean deities,
etc. Also the Nabataean influence can at least point to Aramaic words
in the Qur'an. Furthermore, we a few Aramaic inscriptions from North
West Saudi Arabia (Sulayman al-Theeb's PhD thesis at Durham U.) that can
shed some light as to why Arabic may have got some loan words from
Aramaic. That does not in any way amount to "Western-Aramaic origins of
the Qur'an". It only points to other and more valid explanations of
Aramaic words in the Qur'an.
The "Syro-Aramaic origins of the Qur'an" is a very poor construction of
socio-historic context of rise of Islam. Actually couple of faculty
members whom I have spoken to in the UK have said that Luxenberg's book is
a waste of time and they have quite elaborate reasons as to why it is. But
there will be some discussion before people loose interest.
> Luxenberg and some crackpots following him is that since the
> only (which is wrong) evidence of early arabic is in the poorly read
> early script (or its Nabataean precursor), most of Arabic is merely
> a misreading of this script, which originally represented a "mixture
> of arabic and aramaic" (actually you can have aramaic with arabic
> loanwords or arabic with aramaic loanwords. you can't have a "mixed
> salad")
The "mixture of Arabic and Aramaic" is an ill-defined concept and this has
given Luxenberg an excuse to claim that the normal rules of neither of the
Arabic and Aramaic applies in a particular passage of text. This frees him
to make surmises at whim about the meaning of a particular passage in the
Qur'an, even though those suggestions would otherwise be rejected as
ungrammatical. The hypothesis of a "mixed language" or Mischsprache seems
to be little more than a convenient excuse for high-handed interpretation
of the Qur'anic text. As one can see, this hypothesis leads to more
problems, historically and linguistically, than it claims to solve.
> of the two. the Musnad inscriptions are a concrete counterargument.
> they
> are much more clearer than the Nabataean or early arabic ones, and they
> show the complete consonantal phonemic inventory of Arabic.
Please email me a reference that deals with the musnad inscriptions
showing the complete consonantal phonemic inventory of Arabic. It will
save me some time.
> and while you are at it, why don't you give publicize the URL
> of Simon Hopkins' criticism of Luxenberg.
I will see what I can do about it. Since I will be travelling in the next
week quite extensively, that has kept me busy at work to look into other
material. Insha'allah, after I come back or may be this weekend.
Wassalam
Saifullah
M.S.M. Saifullah
> Now, as was noted, the initial text (the hypothetical inscription) did
> not distinguish between sins and shins or ayns and ghayns. Your
> argument, if I'm not mistaken, would be that you would nonetheless know
> which is an ayn or ghayn (or shin or sin) based on whether it made
> sense, correct?
If one knows Arabic, its grammar and the context, it is not that difficult
to decipher the language. There are many Arabic, Aramaic, Syriac,
Nabataean, Hebrew and other semitic inscriptions where scholars have
little problem in reading them.
A few weeks ago I was doing a Powerpoint presentation about the Arabic
inscriptions on the Dome of the Rock from the time of `Abd al-Malik. When
the imaam of our community say the sparsely dotted inscriptions, he read
it correctly. The only training he has was in classical Arabic!
> But this was not merely a complaint about diacritical marks. Regarding
> the article on the Raqush inscription found on Dr. Saifullaah's site...
>
> http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/raqush.html
>
> ...I am very confused with regard to how the opening character (or two
> characters?!?) on the first line is rendered as a dhaal, while a
> completely different character starting the eighth line is also
> rendered as a dhaal. This isn't merely an issue of diacritical marks,
> but rather one of interpreting an obscure symbol. And even if I offer
> no alternative reading that corresponds with Arabic, this does not mean
Firstly, the image that you see there is a trace image of the original.
Secondly, this trace image does not contain corrections/suggestions for
lacunae which creep in. Thirdly, the paper by Rex and Healey contains the
best image of the Raqush inscription of Madain Salih. So before you jump
and starting doubting other people's scholarship please check your own
position and understanding.
Regards
Saifullah
Yusuf B Gursey
M.S.M. Saifullah wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2005, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>
> Assalamu-alaykum wa rahamatullah:
>
> Yusuf, thanks for your message. At least it made me see the argument is a
> completely different viewpoint and that is good! I only have some comments
> to make.
>
> > why quote them if they are wrong? or misleading? or if they are writing
> > as northern arabs propaganda for their tribe?
>
> I do not know if it is propaganda. The way I saw it was a simple statement
> about Arabs of certain parts of Arabian peninsula.
I just mentioned it as a possibility. but one has to at aleast
re-interpret such statements in terms of modern terminilogy.
traditional islamic usage of "Nabataean" was broader than its
modern meaning.
>
> > > When I said that the Nabataean milieu can successfully explain the
> > > existence of Classical Arabic, I meant it from the point of view of what
> > > is seen in the inscriptions, especially those inscriptions that are
> > > written in Nabataean script but are actually in Classical Arabic.
> >
> > fine, but there are also inscriptions in classical arabic in
> > the "Musnad" (South Semitic script) script as far south as Faw.
>
> I will have a look at them, insha'allah. Give me some time as I will be
> off to Singapore/India for three weeks. I hope to look at them with a
> fresh mind when I back, insha'allah. I am certainly aware of South Semitic
> inscriptions but they do not seem to feature a lot in the literature.
true, mostly they are of the type "Kilroy was here".
but these are evidence that relatively common people
knew writing. theys also feature the names of various
idols, gods and goddesses, mentioned for the
pre-islamic period, as well as a main deity,
alla:h (with some variation as to the form of the
word), "associated with them. the inscriptions (togther
with the genral lack of christian inscriptions in
Central Arabia) confirm that paganism coninued to
exist and was similar to what is described in islamic
sources (unlike the theories of Lueling and others
who deny it).
the inscription at Faw is a funery inscritpion of some
substitance, mentioning (al-)la:h "associated" with the
idol of the Kinda, kahl and venus the Morning Star. it
is also in classical arabic (or an early version of it).
BTW I saw the new website, thanks.
there is also an early 1st millenium Himyari "poem". there
are some problems with its reading, but it is not in Sabaic,
yet features the a "rhyme" in final -k , found in Himyari
verbal endings. Himyari was somewhat divergent from classical
arabic and for a while had its own literature, in the Musnad
script, which was reported by Yemeni authors well into the Islamic
era. it is reproted that the Abbasids ahad a collection of Himyari
books. some yemeni colloquials of today continue some of the
prominent features of Himyari as described in Islamic sources.
there are also Sabaic and related texts found in north and south
Yemen, which I did not go into. these are the southern equivlant
of the Aramaic texts of the north. after a while into the 1st
millenium Sabaic ceased ot be a spoken language (Mahri and related
languages of southern Yemen and Oman seem to be another different
semitic language). the texts start to show features of arabic,
and in some cases were definitely written by arabs.
from these one can learn about many things to be found (and usually
condemend) in the Qur'an like the pagan custom of female infanticide,
the expendition of Abraha towards Mecca. again we iond a central
god *'il "associated" with other idols. that al-la:t and al-3uzza"
were believed as the "daughters" of this central god is found in
one inscription. there was an idol /s^hr/ representing the waxing
crescent (this etymology of arabic *sh*ahr "month" was known to
classical lexicogrpahers; superstitions about crescents are also
condemned in the Qur'an), etymologically it is also related "to
become manifest" i.e the appearance of the waxing crescent marking
the beginning of a new month. among the pagan calendars found,
there is a lunar calendar with an intercalary 13th month. it
is *impossible* to have 13 lunations within a solar year. there
is also an instance of a sacred month being declared profane.
cf. the Qur'anic injunction against intercalation and making
sacred months profane and vice versa (it is not clear if the
two were the same, i.e. sacred months were made profane by
actual manipulation of the calendar or by simple decree) at
any rate both intercalation and arbitrary declaration are
forbidden by the Qur'an. but both seem to have occured prior
to it. thus the historical basis for the lunar islamic calendar,
and this can be infered from Sabaic texts.
the Sabaic texts also mention various political incidents with
Arab tribes and on the whole these are consistent with muslim
tradition. more controversially, some of the monotheist but
not specifically jewish or christian texts are identified with
the experimenters in monotheism, the Hanifs,
>
> > > Well, the article is about alleged Syro-Aramaic origins of the Qur'an. If
> >
> > but if the contention is that of the "Syro-Aramaic origins of the
> > Qur'an"
> > why blow this out of all propertion and skip an important source of the
> > history of Arabic? unlees you are merely amending the title to
> > the "Western-Aramaic origins of the Qur'an" (!). the contention of
>
> If you look at the article carefully, I said that much, if not all, the
> socio-historic rise of Islam can be explained with reasonable success
> using the Nabataean milieu. This includes the origins of Arabic script,
> the existence of classical Arabic in pre-Islamic times, the worship of
> many of the gods and goddesses by Arabs that were also Nabataean deities,
> etc. Also the Nabataean influence can at least point to Aramaic words
> in the Qur'an. Furthermore, we a few Aramaic inscriptions from North
yes. Nabataeans and the pre-islamic arab succesor states in the region.
> West Saudi Arabia (Sulayman al-Theeb's PhD thesis at Durham U.) that can
> shed some light as to why Arabic may have got some loan words from
> Aramaic. That does not in any way amount to "Western-Aramaic origins of
> the Qur'an". It only points to other and more valid explanations of
> Aramaic words in the Qur'an.
I agree. I was being "devil's advocate" for a moment.
but you are were trying to make an argument against
fringe theories so one has to plug in the other holes
in their arguments as well.
>
> The "Syro-Aramaic origins of the Qur'an" is a very poor construction of
> socio-historic context of rise of Islam. Actually couple of faculty
> members whom I have spoken to in the UK have said that Luxenberg's book is
> a waste of time and they have quite elaborate reasons as to why it is. But
> there will be some discussion before people loose interest.
yes.
>
> > Luxenberg and some crackpots following him is that since the
> > only (which is wrong) evidence of early arabic is in the poorly read
> > early script (or its Nabataean precursor), most of Arabic is merely
> > a misreading of this script, which originally represented a "mixture
> > of arabic and aramaic" (actually you can have aramaic with arabic
> > loanwords or arabic with aramaic loanwords. you can't have a "mixed
> > salad")
>
> The "mixture of Arabic and Aramaic" is an ill-defined concept and this has
> given Luxenberg an excuse to claim that the normal rules of neither of the
> Arabic and Aramaic applies in a particular passage of text. This frees him
> to make surmises at whim about the meaning of a particular passage in the
> Qur'an, even though those suggestions would otherwise be rejected as
> ungrammatical. The hypothesis of a "mixed language" or Mischsprache seems
> to be little more than a convenient excuse for high-handed interpretation
> of the Qur'anic text. As one can see, this hypothesis leads to more
> problems, historically and linguistically, than it claims to solve.
I agree very much.
>
> > of the two. the Musnad inscriptions are a concrete counterargument.
> > they
> > are much more clearer than the Nabataean or early arabic ones, and they
> > show the complete consonantal phonemic inventory of Arabic.
>
> Please email me a reference that deals with the musnad inscriptions
> showing the complete consonantal phonemic inventory of Arabic. It will
> save me some time.
there was no single "Musnad" i.e. South Semitic Alphabet, but several
variations for each region / idiom. all the consonantal phonemes
of classical arabic were distinguished. the ancient dialect of
taym (N. Arabian) and Sabaic (and its related idioms) had an exta
letter to distingusih three (classical arabic has two) non-emphatic
sibilants (s or *sh* like sounds). one variant ended up being used
in Ethiopia, and remains in use there, in highly modified forms, today.
you may find them listed in books about the Alphabet such
as by Diringer, and perhaps by Daniels. there is good
and up to date detail in "The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the
World's Ancient Languages" ed. by Woodard.
>
> > and while you are at it, why don't you give publicize the URL
> > of Simon Hopkins' criticism of Luxenberg.
>
> I will see what I can do about it. Since I will be travelling in the next
> week quite extensively, that has kept me busy at work to look into other
> material. Insha'allah, after I come back or may be this weekend.
incidentally, your mentioning Nabataean in eastern Egypt was
interesting, and you even have a dot for Arabic. some references
would be very interesting. presence of Arabs in that region was
mentioned by Strabo, but few studies mention it. arabs traded
with Egypt and set up colonies. the early islamic conqueror of
Egypt, `Amr b. `As had traded with Egypt before Islam.
>
> Wassalam
> Saifullah
>
> http://www.islamic-awareness.org/
AnonMoos
> If one knows Arabic, its grammar and the context, it is not that
> Powerpoint presentation about the Arabic inscriptions on the Dome of
> the Rock from the time of `Abd al-Malik. When the imaam of our
But those inscriptions are all excerpts or slight paraphrases of Qur'an
passages, so it's not really all that surprising...
--
المتبرجة خير
من الإرهابي
المنتحر http://symbolictruth.fateback.com/
Yusuf B Gursey
M.S.M. Saifullah wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2005, Denis Giron wrote:
>
> > Now, as was noted, the initial text (the hypothetical inscription) did
> > not distinguish between sins and shins or ayns and ghayns. Your
> > argument, if I'm not mistaken, would be that you would nonetheless know
> > which is an ayn or ghayn (or shin or sin) based on whether it made
> > sense, correct?
>
> If one knows Arabic, its grammar and the context, it is not that difficult
> to decipher the language. There are many Arabic, Aramaic, Syriac,
> Nabataean, Hebrew and other semitic inscriptions where scholars have
> little problem in reading them.
but the aramaic square script (i.e. essentially what is now called
the "hebrew script") has quite distinct shapes, as does to a lesser
extent the Nabataean script. but as this evovled towards the arabic
script, in the Jahiliya period and the early Islamic period the arabic
script isn't that clearly legible without dots. that's why there are
different readings eof the short pre-islamic inscriptions in arabic
script. agreed, som of the problems are due to our not having too
many examples and not knowing some of the distinctions well (such
as between lam and the "tooth" letters), but still, lack of doting
could potentially create ambiguities.
doting was neccessary because
a) some letters that were dissimilar became in the course of time
similar like /r/ and /z/ .
b) the Aramaic alphabet does not have the full consonantal
inventory of phonemes of arabic.
in these cases, the Nabataeans did soemthing ingenious.
now, Aramaic has the following developments from proto-semitic:
*th* > t , *dh* > d , *DH* > T , *gh* > 3 , x > H
classical arabic preserves the original states for these. what
the Nabataeans did was that to make their names etc. look
less outlandish when written down (i.e. *gh*azza(t) would be
written down as /3zh/ and woudl be pronounced 3azza: by aramaic
speakers, and the same in Hebrew, which is how it is pronounced in
these languages and they chose the aramaic development in
pronounciation of these phonems in their representation
in writing. perhaps some of them devleoped an aramaic
accent in arabic as well, and even may have pronounced
some of them such (NB the development in colloquial arabic
with aramaic infleunce such as urban syrian, jewish and
christian iraqi and the later offshoots of these, that
have *th* > t , *dh* > d , *DH* > D versus those that are closer
to the classical pronounciation, of bedouin origin: muslim iraqi,
gulf, yemen, rural syrian, mauritania and environs (Hassaniya)).
when arabs starting writing in that alpahbet for themselves,
and with the Qur'an proper pronounciation became even more of
an imperative, dots where put to distinguish them.
>
> A few weeks ago I was doing a Powerpoint presentation about the Arabic
> inscriptions on the Dome of the Rock from the time of `Abd al-Malik. When
> the imaam of our community say the sparsely dotted inscriptions, he read
> it correctly. The only training he has was in classical Arabic!
but that is an islamic inscription with quotes or paraphrases
from the Qur'an. not only does your imam have training in classical
arabic, but (I'm sure) he also knows the Qur'an by heart! so the
content is fairly predictable.
for more profane old inscriptions whose content is not known,
you sometimes have various readings by different scholars.
some of it is, as I just said, due to our inexperience,
butthere is soem genuine ambiguity.
dotless writing survived for a long time in coins, which are
difficult to engrave and have predictable legends.
it survived in the monograms of Sultans (the tughra, a turkish
traditon) for aesthetic reasons and also because the content
was predicatble (this is a dotless cursive script).
more signifcantly a type of writing known as siya:qat remained
mostly dotless. this was for financial registers. the idea was
that documents could be altered by adding dots. the not readily
legible character also ensured a certain level of privacy. to
compensate common words were written in specifically individual
stylized forms. again, the content is predictable. one has to
learn the siyaqat of each language or region seperately. it's
as type of shorthand. it was regular in ottoman financial work
until the late 19th cent. it was also used in Iran (somebody
hinted it is still used by bazaar merchants) and (IIRC) muslim
India. numbers were written as siyaqat abbreviations of their
arabic names, but these would frequently be replaced
by "regular" "arabic numerlas" due to their ease in computation.
but when you want to convey information, dotting is essential,
and in the Qur'an, voweling as well.
M.S.M. Saifullah
Assalamu-alaykum wa rahamatullah:
> knew writing. theys also feature the names of various
> idols, gods and goddesses, mentioned for the
> pre-islamic period, as well as a main deity,
> alla:h (with some variation as to the form of the
> word), "associated with them. the inscriptions (togther
> with the genral lack of christian inscriptions in
> Central Arabia) confirm that paganism coninued to
> exist and was similar to what is described in islamic
> sources (unlike the theories of Lueling and others
> who deny it).
The inscriptions at Faw suggest the deities Kahl, El, al-Lat, `Athar
Ashraq, al-`Uzza, Manat, Wadd, Shams, etc. were worshipped in the State of
Kinda, South (western) Arabian peninsula. Some of these are obviously
Nabataean deities. What is interesting is that many of these idols
also survived until the advent of Islam. "Allah", not surprisngly
remained aniconic, i.e., no images of it were made unlike other idols of
Hubal, al-`Uzza etc. If one looks at the complete picture using the
Nabataean and the Musnad inscriptions, as you said, they are not in
Christian in content at all, leave alone they being Jewish! When Islam
bursted into the world scene, Christianity was just about trying to enter
Arabian peninsula (e.g., Najran). The advent of Islam pushed Christianity
out of Arabian peninsula.
> the inscription at Faw is a funery inscritpion of some
> substitance, mentioning (al-)la:h "associated" with the
> idol of the Kinda, kahl and venus the Morning Star. it
> is also in classical arabic (or an early version of it).
Except for the well-known Faw inscription at:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/faw.html
others appear to have been written in a language where Arabic remains
undifferentiated something similar to Raqush inscription where it is in
Arabic but with Aramaisms.
> I agree. I was being "devil's advocate" for a moment.
> but you are were trying to make an argument against
> fringe theories so one has to plug in the other holes
> in their arguments as well.
:-) Perhaps you did a good job! I can view the issue in a much wider
angle, alhamdulillah.
> you may find them listed in books about the Alphabet such
> as by Diringer, and perhaps by Daniels. there is good
> and up to date detail in "The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the
> World's Ancient Languages" ed. by Woodard.
I was reading this on my way back from London in train on Friday. Quite
interesing stuff on Ancient North Arabian and Ancient South Arabian.
> incidentally, your mentioning Nabataean in eastern Egypt was
> interesting, and you even have a dot for Arabic. some references
> would be very interesting. presence of Arabs in that region was
> mentioned by Strabo, but few studies mention it. arabs traded
> with Egypt and set up colonies. the early islamic conqueror of
> Egypt, `Amr b. `As had traded with Egypt before Islam.
Yes, it needs to be looked into. Also the presence of Ethiopic words in
the Qur'an can also be explained as the Nabataean inscriptions go all the
way near to what is called Ethiopia today.
Wassalam
Saifullah
Ayman
> Yes, it needs to be looked into. Also the presence of Ethiopic words in
> the Qur'an can also be explained as the Nabataean inscriptions go all the
> way near to what is called Ethiopia today.
You mentioned that there are Ethiopic words in the great
reading/"quran". What words are those?
I know of one such possible Ethiopic word. According to Classical Arabic
dictionaries, Chapter 20 starts with an Ethiopic loan word. For example,
here is what Lisan Al-Arab says about the meaning of "taha":
"It means "hey man" in Ethiopic"
So here the great reading includes what is essentially an informal slang
word. The dictionaries attribute this word to Ethiopic, which like
Hadramatic and Sabaic is also a Southern Semitic language. So this slang
word could have been borrowed into those Southern Arabian dialects.
In light of this information, let's fully translate 20:1-2:
20:1-2. Hey man, We didn't descend on you the reading to make you
suffer.
As one can see, the meaning fits in the context of 20:1-2 and adds value
and richness to the passage and completes it. Even though one might be
surprised for hearing such an informal way of expression in the great
reading, one must keep in mind that the real Classical Arabic at the
time of the great reading was a common people informal language spoken
on the street and at homes and it was not the formalized religious
language that it is made out to be today.
Despite clearly being written as connected words and not as separate
letters in Arabic, words such as "taha" have been traditionally
considered to be "initials". Now the above observation is significant
because it demonstrates that those alleged "initials" could be in fact
meaningful words and this may provide ideas for deciphering other
alleged "initials".
Peace,
Ayman
--
http://www.fastmail.fm - IMAP accessible web-mail
M.S.M. Saifullah
> > If one knows Arabic, its grammar and the context, it is not that
> > difficult to decipher the language. A few weeks ago I was doing a
> > Powerpoint presentation about the Arabic inscriptions on the Dome of
> > the Rock from the time of `Abd al-Malik. When the imaam of our
> > community saw the sparsely dotted inscriptions, he read it correctly.
>
> But those inscriptions are all excerpts or slight paraphrases of Qur'an
> passages, so it's not really all that surprising...
The inscriptions are at:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/DoTR.html
If you read them closely, you would find that the part of the inscriptions
are slightly different from the Qur'an. For example, in 7:156 there is a
shift from first to third person. So, even if someone knows the Qur'an, he
still has to figure out the change of person.
Wassalam
Saifullah
Yusuf B Gursey
M.S.M. Saifullah wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Jun 2005, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>
> Assalamu-alaykum wa rahamatullah:
>
> > knew writing. theys also feature the names of various
> > idols, gods and goddesses, mentioned for the
> > pre-islamic period, as well as a main deity,
> > alla:h (with some variation as to the form of the
> > word), "associated with them. the inscriptions (togther
> > with the genral lack of christian inscriptions in
> > Central Arabia) confirm that paganism coninued to
> > exist and was similar to what is described in islamic
> > sources (unlike the theories of Lueling and others
> > who deny it).
>
> The inscriptions at Faw suggest the deities Kahl, El, al-Lat, `Athar
> Ashraq, al-`Uzza, Manat, Wadd, Shams, etc. were worshipped in the State of
> Kinda, South (western) Arabian peninsula. Some of these are obviously
but some are not.
> Nabataean deities. What is interesting is that many of these idols
> also survived until the advent of Islam. "Allah", not surprisngly
> remained aniconic, i.e., no images of it were made unlike other idols of
yes, that is a good point. Allah wasn't a "tribal" deity either,
as some polemics say.
> Hubal, al-`Uzza etc. If one looks at the complete picture using the
> Nabataean and the Musnad inscriptions, as you said, they are not in
> Christian in content at all, leave alone they being Jewish! When Islam
> bursted into the world scene, Christianity was just about trying to enter
> Arabian peninsula (e.g., Najran). The advent of Islam pushed Christianity
> out of Arabian peninsula.
and the fall of the ethiopian regime in Yemen just prior.
>
> > the inscription at Faw is a funery inscritpion of some
> > substitance, mentioning (al-)la:h "associated" with the
> > idol of the Kinda, kahl and venus the Morning Star. it
> > is also in classical arabic (or an early version of it).
>
> Except for the well-known Faw inscription at:
>
> http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/faw.html
>
> others appear to have been written in a language where Arabic remains
> undifferentiated something similar to Raqush inscription where it is in
they have little "foreign" (non-arab) influence, even less aramaic.
many are just in dialects that disappeared with the spread of
classical arabic.
> Arabic but with Aramaisms.
>
> > I agree. I was being "devil's advocate" for a moment.
> > but you are were trying to make an argument against
> > fringe theories so one has to plug in the other holes
> > in their arguments as well.
>
> :-) Perhaps you did a good job! I can view the issue in a much wider
> angle, alhamdulillah.
>
> > you may find them listed in books about the Alphabet such
> > as by Diringer, and perhaps by Daniels. there is good
> > and up to date detail in "The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the
> > World's Ancient Languages" ed. by Woodard.
>
> I was reading this on my way back from London in train on Friday. Quite
> interesing stuff on Ancient North Arabian and Ancient South Arabian.
the article on Classical Arabic was written by Macdonald, which
is good, except that he advocates his own theory concerning the
late changes of sin / shin, which is not accepted by all. see
Enc. of Islam II "Sin and Shin" by de Blois.
>
> > incidentally, your mentioning Nabataean in eastern Egypt was
> > interesting, and you even have a dot for Arabic. some references
> > would be very interesting. presence of Arabs in that region was
> > mentioned by Strabo, but few studies mention it. arabs traded
> > with Egypt and set up colonies. the early islamic conqueror of
> > Egypt, `Amr b. `As had traded with Egypt before Islam.
>
> Yes, it needs to be looked into. Also the presence of Ethiopic words in
> the Qur'an can also be explained as the Nabataean inscriptions go all the
> way near to what is called Ethiopia today.
>
you certainly don't need the Nabataeans to explain the presence of
ethiopic words in Old Hijazi arabic. after all, the Quraysh
traded with Ethiopia, early muslims sought refuge there, the
Prophet had good diplomatic relations with the Negus etc.
the Ethiopians in Yemen tried unsuccesfully to impose
christianity in Yemen and beyond. but in the process it
is not surprising that they added to the religious
terminology of the region.
what I have been trying to emphasize is that there is
evidence of a non-aramaeanized arab literary tradition
in the peninsula. eventually the Nabataean *script*
was succesful and was use for the Qur'an. but the
language comes form various sources.
the Qur'an says it is in "clear" arabic. it is not a book
of etymology. it says it is in the language that is clear
to its audience, it does not say or claim anything about
the prior history of the words.
semitic langauges are closely related and were spoken
in a comapct area. thus, exchange of words and features
amongst them was frequent.