Re: Luxenberg's critique
Yusuf B Gursey
Denis Giron wrote:
> M.S.M. Saifullah wrote:
> > "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
i.e. dha:l
> 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,
i.e. dha:l
> 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
the *script* is a variety of aramaic script.
> 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
in the arab north.
> 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).
but possibely ancestral to that "genre or mileu"
>
> 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
Yusuf B Gursey
M.S.M. Saifullah wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Denis Giron wrote:
>
> > 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
the "feel" is to the script, because Nabataean script is a variety of
Aramaic script, and Nabataean script the ancestor of the arabic script.
> 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
Nabataeans were Arabs not vice versa.
> Nabataeo-Aramaic. It is the Nabataean milieu that can successfully explain
> the origin of Arabic script, classical Arabic as well as the
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).
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.
> 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.
> 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
>
> http://www.islamic-awareness.org/
Peter T. Daniels
That's misleading; the earliest dated Syriac manuscript is from 411 CE,
so it tells us nothing at all about how early the practice of dotting r
and/or d in manuscripts was.
Drijvers's corpus of Old Syriac inscriptions (Brill, HdO) _doesn't_ show
dotted r or d.
Yusuf, since you decrossposted this thread from all the newsgroups where
it originated, perhaps you could copy them back in?
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
M.S.M. Saifullah
> > > 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.
>
> That's misleading; the earliest dated Syriac manuscript is from 411 CE,
> so it tells us nothing at all about how early the practice of dotting r
> and/or d in manuscripts was.
Peter, if you read what I said you do not have to make this comment. I
said how far back the dotting goes in Syriac is uncertain. Segal thinks
that the dotting to differentiate between "r" and "d" is late.
Regards
Saifullah
Peter T. Daniels
But citing the date 411 is misleading. The inscriptions go back four
centuries before that, but inscriptions are more conservative than
handwriting, so there is no way to determine the age of d/r dotting in
Syriac.
I believe it's the first dot mentioned in his little book, and he
recognizes that it's the oldest one.
M.S.M. Saifullah
> But citing the date 411 is misleading. The inscriptions go back four
> centuries before that, but inscriptions are more conservative than
> handwriting, so there is no way to determine the age of d/r dotting in
> Syriac.
>
> I believe it's the first dot mentioned in his little book, and he
> recognizes that it's the oldest one.
Peter, I just checked Healey's article on the early history of Syriac
script published in Journal of Semitic Studies where he draws a chart
using both inscriptions and manuscripts. The earliest instance when there
is a differentiation between "r" and "d" is from 411 CE.
If you are talking about the Serrin inscription of 73 CE where the author
claimed to have seen a dot under "d"; this is not confirmed by the
examination of copies. I think Pognon in "Inscription Semitique..."
mentions it. Need to check!
Regards
Saifullah
Peter T. Daniels
>
> On Sat, 18 Jun 2005, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > But citing the date 411 is misleading. The inscriptions go back four
> > centuries before that, but inscriptions are more conservative than
> > handwriting, so there is no way to determine the age of d/r dotting in
> > Syriac.
> >
> > I believe it's the first dot mentioned in his little book, and he
> > recognizes that it's the oldest one.
>
> Peter, I just checked Healey's article on the early history of Syriac
> script published in Journal of Semitic Studies where he draws a chart
> using both inscriptions and manuscripts. The earliest instance when there
> is a differentiation between "r" and "d" is from 411 CE.
NO. That is the earliest example THAT HAPPENS TO BE ATTESTED. Because
it's the earliest dated manuscript we know of.
It sounds like you're claiming that if next week someone going through
Arthur Vööbus's microfilms of Syriac mss. (at the Lutheran School of
Theology in Chicago; not coincidentally, he was my Syriac teacher) finds
one dated 400, it wouldn't have d/r dots!
> If you are talking about the Serrin inscription of 73 CE where the author
> claimed to have seen a dot under "d"; this is not confirmed by the
> examination of copies. I think Pognon in "Inscription Semitique..."
> mentions it. Need to check!
I said: Drijvers's corpus of Old Syriac inscriptions does NOT show
dotting.
I also said that epigraphy is more conservative than manuscripts, so
mss. may have been dotting merrily away for generations before
stonecarvers took up the innovation.
I also referred you to Segal's book, which you mentioned (The
Diacritical Point and Accents in Syriac, 1951), which notes that the d/r
dot is the earliest dot in Syriac mss. Neither vowel dotting nor
rukkakha/kusshaya appears in 411.
Yusuf B Gursey
the relevant people are aware of your posting. believe me, you don't
want most of the denizens of the original newsgroups in sci.lang
M.S.M. Saifullah
> > Peter, I just checked Healey's article on the early history of Syriac
> > script published in Journal of Semitic Studies where he draws a chart
> > using both inscriptions and manuscripts. The earliest instance when there
> > is a differentiation between "r" and "d" is from 411 CE.
>
> NO. That is the earliest example THAT HAPPENS TO BE ATTESTED. Because
> it's the earliest dated manuscript we know of.
We are talking about the same thing. The earliest instance of appearance
of differentiation between "r" and "d" is from 411 CE. It does not mean
that it was not used earlier. This I have already stated in my earlier
message. How far this differentiation goes is unclear.
> I also said that epigraphy is more conservative than manuscripts, so
> mss. may have been dotting merrily away for generations before
> stonecarvers took up the innovation.
May be. But in Arabic epigraphy dotting appears earlier than the
manuscripts.
Regards
Saifullah
Peter T. Daniels
> > I also said that epigraphy is more conservative than manuscripts, so
> > mss. may have been dotting merrily away for generations before
> > stonecarvers took up the innovation.
>
> May be. But in Arabic epigraphy dotting appears earlier than the
> manuscripts.
Sigh. The earliest Arabic inscriptions are older than the earliest
manuscripts, and the earliest papyri from the Cairo Geniza (dating to
within a decade or so of the Prophet's lifetime) have some dotting.
(They are mundane commercial documents and are probably earlier than the
writing-down of the Qur'an.)
Yusuf B Gursey
M.S.M. Saifullah wrote:
> 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/
António Marques
> hubal and mana:t are accepted as idols of the northern arabs. but
> in Mecca there was also for example, Shams, the solar goddess,
Speaking of which, what would be good sources for pre-monotheistic
semitic religions - including arab and hebrew?
--
am
laurus : rhodophyta : brezoneg : smalltalk : stargate
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>
> > hubal and mana:t are accepted as idols of the northern arabs. but
> > in Mecca there was also for example, Shams, the solar goddess,
>
> Speaking of which, what would be good sources for pre-monotheistic
> semitic religions - including arab and hebrew?
Well, you could start with the earlier books of the Bible (the parts
written earlier, not the ones that happen to come first in the standard
order).
If you have access to the giant set *Civilizations of the Ancient Near
East*, ed. Jack Sasson, you'll have a very good start.
Yusuf B Gursey
: Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
:> hubal and mana:t are accepted as idols of the northern arabs. but
:> in Mecca there was also for example, Shams, the solar goddess,
: Speaking of which, what would be good sources for pre-monotheistic
: semitic religions - including arab and hebrew?
for arab paganism try:
Author: Fahd, T. (Toufic)
Title: Le Panthéon de l'Arabie centrale à la veille de
l'Hégire.
Published: Paris, P. Geuthner, 1968.
Description: xvi, 323 p. map. 25cm.
the same author has published more recent works.
for Canaanite religion there has been some reviews of works in J. of
Semitic Studies and J. Near Eastern Studies recently.
Yusuf B Gursey
Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> In sci.lang Ant?nio Marques <m....@sapo.pt> wrote in <42b731e3$0$32374$a729...@news.telepac.pt>:
> : Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>
> :> hubal and mana:t are accepted as idols of the northern arabs. but
> :> in Mecca there was also for example, Shams, the solar goddess,
>
> : Speaking of which, what would be good sources for pre-monotheistic
> : semitic religions - including arab and hebrew?
>
> for arab paganism try:
>
> Author: Fahd, T. (Toufic)
>
> Title: Le Panthéon de l'Arabie centrale à la veille de
> l'Hégire.
>
> Published: Paris, P. Geuthner, 1968.
>
> Description: xvi, 323 p. map. 25cm.
also:
Author: Ryckmans, G. (Gonzague), b. 1887.
Title: Les Religions Arabes préislamiques.
Edition: 2. ed.
Published: Louvain, Universitaires, 1951.
related but not identical (South Arabia):
A. Jamme, Le pantheon sud-arabe preislamique d'apres les sources
epigraphiques,
in Le Museon, lx [1947], 88 and n. 225, 102, 106
António Marques
Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> semitic & pre-islamic arab religion references
Thank you both.
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/