Language Barrier - (Part - 5)
Pondering Mind
I am herein reproducing the article of Brother Ayman in parts which one could access in full at the following link: http://www.free-minds.org/articles/science/language.htm
Language Barrier - (Part - 5)
JAHILIYA HISTORY
Unfortunately, historians often rely on Jahiliya poetry to reconstruct the history of the "pre-quranic" period in Arabia. They also rely on "post-quranic" stories such as those produced by Ibn Is-haq. The most well known turning point in the history of "pre-quranic" Arabia seems to be the alleged Year of the Elephant. This is the year when an Abyssinian expedition under the leadership of Abraha was supposedly defeated while allegedly invading Maka(t). This is also the year when the prophet was supposed to be born. This year is given by traditional historians as the year 570AD.
Fortunately, we can objectively investigate the history of Abraha because in this case we have physical archeological evidence in the form of a very detailed inscription written to commemorate his expedition. This large inscription is depicted on a rock near a well in southern Arabia.
The Abraha inscription is an example of the kind of archeological evidence that provides information that totally contradicts the official view of Jahiliya history.
Transliteration:
"bi khayl Rahmanan wa masyha malikan Abraha Zybman malik Saba' wa Zuraydan wa Hadramut wa Yement wa r'a rab hamw twadam wa thamat satro zn satran k'ghazow ma'ndam ghazwatn rab'atan b'warkhan Zthbatan Kafa saadu kl bani amrm wa zaki malikn abjabar b ainam kadat wain w basharm bin hasahanm bainm san dam wa mardam wa hadaru qadami jayshan alia bani yamram kadat wail bi wad samrakh wa mardam wa sadam bi wad bi manhaj tarban wa zabahow wa sarw wa ghanamw zaisam wa makhdah malakin bi Halban wa dawn ka zalam maidam wrahanw wa badanahaw nwa sa'aham mw Amram Bin Mazran wa rahanamw bin haw wa sata khalafw ala ma'dam wa qafalw bin hal ( bi)n bi akhayal Rahmanan wa rakhaw zalan salthany w sathya ws."
Translation:
"With the power of the Almighty, and His Messiah King Abraha Zeebman, the King of Saba'a, Zuridan, and Hadrmaut and Yemen and the tribes (on) the mountains and the coast wrote these lines on his battle against the tribe of Ma'ad (in) the battle of al-Rabiya in the month of "Dhu al Thabithan" and fought all of Bani A'amir and appointed the King Abi Jabar with Kinda and Al, Bishar bin Hasan with Sa'ad, Murad, and Hadarmaut in front of the army against Bani Amir of Kinda. and Al in Zu Markh valley and Murad and Sa'ad in Manha valley on the way to Turban and killed and captured and took the booty in large quantities and the King and fought at Halban and reached Ma'ad and took booty and prisoners, and after that, conquered Omro bin al-Munzir.
(Abrha) appointed the son (of Omro) as the ruler and returned from Hal Ban (Halban) with the power of the Almighty in the month of Zu A'allan in the year sixty-two and six hundred."
The above inscription describes in detail the expedition of Abraha until his return. As one can clearly see, contrary to the fairy tales that we hear from traditionalists there is absolutely no mention of anything related to elephants, Kaaba(t), or Maka(t). According to the inscription it is Abraha who defeated and returned after conquering the Arab tribes and not the other way around as traditionalists contend.
It is not surprising that the inscription doesn't mention elephants. It would have been highly impractical to bring elephants into the desert and carry their weight in water. Moreover, elephants had fallen out of use as battle gear approximately seven centuries earlier. This is for the simple reason that elephants' feet are very sensitive and it is very easy to defeat elephants in battle by placing thorns or any sharp objects in their path. Elephants would have suffered greatly in the scorching sands of the desert without giving an invading army any advantage. Thus, it is very unlikely that Abraha used elephants.
Chapter 105 of the great reading doesn't say anything about Kaaba(t), Maka(t), or Abraha. In light of verses such as 11:82 and 15:74 that talk about the punishment of the people of Lot as being hit by "7ijarat min sijjil", the same exact Arabic term in chapter 105, the chapter is more likely to be referring to the people of Lot and not Abraha.
Another interesting fact that is confirmed by the great reading is that the southern Arabs at the time of the prophet used to call The God "Al-Rahman" (Rahmanan in Sabiac where the definite article is post-posed as "nan"). We don't find inscriptions in Northern Arabia with the name Rahman while we find it in Southern Arabian inscriptions so this name was used by Southern Arabs. The sign in 17:110 is in perfect agreement with the archeological evidence. We can now see that the opening of "Bism Allah Al-Rahman Al-Rahim" and the whole honorable reading was addressing both Northern and Southern Arabs and not just one tribe or the other.
In addition, there are also other interesting linguistic implications to how people living during "pre-quranic" times understood the language of the great reading. The term Al-Rahman is often interpreted in classical Arabic dictionaries to mean "Gracious" or "Beneficent". This is not in line with how the attribute is used in the great reading, where for example, in 19:45 we hear prophet Ibrahim say to his father, a rejecting idol-worshipper, "I fear you would be struck with the wrath of Al-Rahman." The word Al-Rahman in 19:45 is more likely to invoke fear of retribution as opposed to hope of benefit or grace. The Abraha inscription confirms the meaning of Al-Rahman as used in the great reading to mean an attribute that conveys power: The Almighty. Both physical archeological evidence (as opposed to hearsay) and the great reading are in perfect match on how people at the time of the prophet must have understood the meaning of Al-Rahman. Notice also in the inscription the use of "zaki" to mean "promote" and not "give charity".
Joseph Couq "L'Eglise d'Afrique du Nord du IIe au XIIe siecle" (1984) p. 120-1 shows examples of the Bismallah on coins rendered in Latin (76AH/695CE - 98AH/716CE) as "in nomine Dei misericordis" (in the name of God the Merciful). So it seems that only Al-Rahim was translated and the early post-quranic Arabs totally neglected to translate Al-Rahman. We see the same phenomena on bilingual North Arabian papyri, for example in early Arabic-Greek texts the word "Rahman" is not translated [See: H. I. Bell, "The Arabic Bilingual Entagion", Proceedings Of The American Philosophical Society, 1945, Volume 89, pp. 538-539; and Alan Jones, "The Dotting Of A Script And The Dating Of An Era: The Strange Neglect Of PERF 558", in Islamic Culture, 1998, Volume LXXII, No. 4, pp. 95-103]. This proves that even after the revelation of 17:110 the people of Northern Arabia were still confused about the meaning of Al-Rahman and hence didn't translate it.
As we have seen, the story of Abraha as told in the inscription is kind of dull and with no happy ending for the Arabs. On the other hand, the hearsay tales from sectarians are filled with amazing details, suspense, and drama. They capture people's imagination with the amazing detail of the character of an old frail man (the fictitious Abd Al-Mutilib) standing in the path of the Army of Abraha. The stories have special effects of amazing creatures (the elephants) and gore (the flesh and blood flowed like water and the skin of Abraha and his soldiers falling off and exposing the bones, etc.). These hearsay stories that the Arabs concocted long after the fact have very high entertainment value and appeal to the masses much as Hollywood flicks often do. However, they have no value for those interested in the truth. The Arabs were very proud of their forefathers as evident from the many inscriptions bearing family lineage and tribal affiliation. Thus, when they became in the seat of power, they rewrote history to turn their forefathers' humiliating defeat at the hands of Abraha into a legendary victory.
As a side note, the date on the inscription converts to 552AD. According to traditionalists, the prophet was born in the year of Abraha's expedition and they say that he was born in 570AD. So this pushes back the date of birth of the prophet by about 20 years. This creates a big problem for traditionalists. They now either have to revise the entire story of the prophet or they have to give up all their "Sahih" Hadiths. This is for the simple reason that all the chains of transmission of their Hadiths will now be broken as a result of pushing back the dates by 20 years.
As we see, even the most famous and well-known turning point in the history of Arabia, including the date of birth of the prophet, as recounted by traditionalists turned out to be problematic. Moreover, the archeological evidence has significant implications on how words such as "makka(t)" and "kaaba(t) should be understood.
(To be Continued)IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER:
2:2. This is the book no doubt in it, a guidance for the forethoughtful.
This article reflects my personal interpretation of the verses of the reading as of February 3, 2005. I will try to improve my understanding of the great reading and the universe, except if The God wills and perhaps my Lord guides me to what is nearer in rationality. Please verify all information within for yourself as commanded in 17:36, and remember that simply "none" is the forethoughtful answer to 45:6. If The God willed, the outcome of this article will be beneficial.