Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → Life, The Universe & Everything → Religions and Gods → Qur'anic studies today

Welcome

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

Donations

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

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts

Lights on the way
by akay
Today at 09:01 AM
Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
Today at 08:53 AM
New Britain
Yesterday at 08:17 AM
Gaza assault
by zeca
November 27, 2024, 07:13 PM
What music are you listen...
by zeca
November 24, 2024, 06:05 PM
Do humans have needed kno...
November 22, 2024, 06:45 AM
اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
November 20, 2024, 09:02 AM
Marcion and the introduct...
by zeca
November 19, 2024, 11:36 PM
Dutch elections
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 10:11 PM
Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 08:46 PM
AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
November 07, 2024, 09:56 AM
The origins of Judaism
by zeca
November 02, 2024, 12:56 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Qur'anic studies today

 (Read 1499896 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 76 77 7879 80 ... 370 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2310 - June 29, 2018, 10:01 PM
    Quote from: Mahgraye on June 29, 2018, 09:13 PM
    Altara and Zeca - what do you think?

    tbh I don’t know enough to have much of an opinion. I’m very much a non-expert. I also thought there was a consensus on the derivation from Syriac.
    Which side are you on?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2311 - June 29, 2018, 10:35 PM
    Robert Hoyland - The Birth of Arabic Writing on Stone
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PkxZfpUqtCk
    Which side are you on?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2312 - July 01, 2018, 09:42 PM
    Thread: https://mobile.twitter.com/Safaitic/status/1013388269298601986
    Quote from: Ahmad Al-Jallad
    Response to DM question: "does the Arabic script come from Syriac"? This is one of the views of pre-modern Arabic-writing scholars (and is still followed by a few Aramaicists in France). While related, it is the Nabataean script that gave rise to Arabic script.

    Which side are you on?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2313 - July 01, 2018, 09:51 PM
    Thread: https://mobile.twitter.com/PhDniX/status/1012831782297882625
    Quote from: Marijn van Putten
    My claim that faṭara 'to create' is a loanword from Ethiopic has proven surprisingly controversial to the people who read this thread, quoted tweet has some references. There are many loanwords in the Qurʾān with an obvious Ethiopic origin. faṭara is one of many.

    Which side are you on?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2314 - July 01, 2018, 10:05 PM
    Quote from: zeca on July 01, 2018, 09:42 PM
    Thread: https://mobile.twitter.com/Safaitic/status/1013388269298601986
    it is the Nabataean script that gave rise to Arabic script.


    No evidence given from the Al Jallad side, only faith. Just see the photos of F. Briquel-Chatonnet article. They speak enough to comprehend why Al Jallad has nothing to present.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2315 - July 01, 2018, 10:07 PM
    Quote from: zeca on July 01, 2018, 09:51 PM
    Thread: https://mobile.twitter.com/PhDniX/status/1012831782297882625


    Ethiopia was Christianized by Syriac monks. This further complicates the problem.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2316 - July 01, 2018, 10:14 PM
    Al-Jallad referenced three articles, one by Macdonald, one by Nehmé, and one by himself. Have you read them? Not saying Al-Jallad must be right, but to say he is basing his opinion on faith when he provided three scholarly articles seems unjustified, especially when the dots and letters, at least per Al-Jallad, are seemingly derived from Nabatean down to the smallest detail. He even gives pictures just like that F. Briquel-Chatonnet.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2317 - July 01, 2018, 10:37 PM
    I thought that they were right ! But I read the  F. Briquel-Chatonnet article which have convinced me of the contrary. I speak of the Quranic script of course. Nothing to see with Nabatean. Noldeke was wrong on many things (chronology of the sura, etc), he was a super great believer of the traditional account and therefore the Quranic script have to be drawn from the peninsula. He is now totally outdated but he is still venerated like Bukhari by Anglo Saxon scholars. Laila Nehmé is cool : she works in Hegra under Saudi supervision, is Arab herself, and know nothing about Syriac script. Idem of Macdonald who follows his Master. They are all great believers of the traditional account.  Each one have reasons (outside science) to stuck to Nabatean.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2318 - July 02, 2018, 07:44 AM
    I haven't been on here in a very long time: phd student in europe, studied north Arabian at leiden summer school and nabataean, and greatly interested in these topics. Mr. Altara you call the Nabataean account traditional but the traditional muslim account claims as Syriac origin for Arabic script! you never respond to why syriac is source. I read those articles and the nabataean is obvious: evolution of alif, ha, dal vs. Ra, etc. ligatures like lamalif, and now the dots. None of these features are found in syriac and the article you reference dates to before some of the most important discoveries. Can you explain how the development of the letter shapes is better explained by syriac than nabataean and the transitional inscriptions. Who exactly is macdonalds master and what does nehme having arab ancestry even matter? This is borderline racism.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2319 - July 02, 2018, 10:44 AM
    Dear canaaniteshift,
    1/ Did you read the  F. Briquel-Chatonnet article? Nope. 1) Because I do not think that you are fluent in French 2) If you had done it, you'd not have written : "evolution of alif, ha, dal vs. Ra, etc. ligatures like lamalif, and now the dots. None of these features are found in syriac. " and  "Can you explain how the development of the letter shapes is better explained by syriac than nabataean and the transitional inscriptions." (yawn)
    2/ I do not "call the Nabataean account traditional", you misunderstand what I said. What I call the traditional account (here) is the fact that Noldeke et al. want that the peninsula be the genuine place of the Quranic script like they want that the peninsula be the genuine place of the Quranic text whose the only Arabic feature is the script, the rest belonging to the world of the Biblical Revelation which do not belong to the peninsula. As for what the Muslim  traditional account say about the about the origin of the Quranic script is contradictory as usual. In fact it knows nothing about it.
    3/ "Who exactly is macdonalds master and what does nehme having arab ancestry even matter? This is borderline racism."
    His master is the anglo saxon school, the Noldeke one. It matters for her like for all people on this planet. If "racism" is telling that people are from a specific culture and have specific genes, and that has its importance in behaviour, etc., then I am. Star Trek does exist, but only on TV. The entire world does not speak English.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2320 - July 02, 2018, 12:08 PM
    Quote from: Altara on July 02, 2018, 10:44 AM
    . If "racism" is telling that people are from a specific culture and have specific genes, and that has its importance in behaviour, etc., then I am. Star Trek does exist, but only on TV. The entire world does not speak English.

    The idea that someone's ancestry would influence the way they think about the development of a script is patently absurd. We agree here: you are a racist. But beyond that you don't even engage with ideas : yawn is not a response. I did read the article and have before you posted it. All dutch read french as well as english and german so i don't understand why you are appealing to anglocentrism. The letter shapes Nehmé describes point by point in detail how they developed from nabataean.you have no response and neither does briquel-chatonnet. The dot on the dal is exclusively a nabataean feature you can't just yawn at it. Or well you can but it isn't a convincing argument. As for macdonoalds master being noldeke: that shows you haven't read his work. he disagrees on many points with him. And what is this about proving the quran comes from the arabian peninsula? The Arabian peninsula isn't a "place"; it's current borders are a modern construct. North arabia was always more connected to the levantine hinterland than the najd or yemen. All these scholars are arguing for a connection with nabataean levant and not najd. It makes no sense to talk in terms of arabian peninsula.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2321 - July 02, 2018, 02:58 PM
    Quote from: Altara on June 29, 2018, 09:53 PM
    Al-Jallad is a Muslim who want desperately that the peninsula be responsible of the Quranic script.

    Quote from: canaaniteshift on July 02, 2018, 07:44 AM
    I haven't been on here in a very long time: phd student in europe, studied north Arabian at leiden summer school and nabataean, and greatly interested in these topics.

    canaaniteshift - is there anything to suggest that Al-Jallad is actually a Muslim?
    Which side are you on?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2322 - July 02, 2018, 03:20 PM
    Quote
    The idea that someone's ancestry would influence the way they think about the development of a script is patently absurd.


    It's "absurd" is not an argument. It's "absurd" because you (like all your generation) have been taught like this. It is ideology and nothing else. Unfortunately it does not correspond to the human reality. Humanity is culture and genes.
    Nehmé is Arab, her work is Nabatean, and she's in Saudi land. Even if she thought what I thought and wrote it down, she would be expelled from the country, his career would be finished (travels, etc) But the main point in fact is that determine the origin of the Quranic script is not (at all) his field. She's an archaeologist who do not know Syriac.
    You do not even comprehend the concept of Anglo Saxon scholarship whereas F.B.C alludes to it. If it does not exist, why she alludes ? She's racist too? Go tell her...
    Quote
    The letter shapes Nehmé describes point by point in detail how they developed from nabataean.you have no response and neither does briquel-chatonnet.


    F.B.C has a response that she states very clearly in her article. But, as I thought, either you do not know reading (curious for a PhD guy) or better you do not know French.
    Quote
    The Arabian peninsula isn't a "place";


    It is, regarding "Mecca".

    Quote
    All these scholars are arguing for a connection with nabataean levant and not najd.

    Nabataean levant has long vanished in the 6 or 7 c.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2323 - July 02, 2018, 04:51 PM
    Quote from: Altara on July 02, 2018, 03:20 PM
    It's "absurd" is not an argument. It's "absurd" because you (like all your generation) have been taught like this. It is ideology and nothing else. Unfortunately it does not correspond to the human reality. Humanity is culture and genes.
    Nehmé is Arab, her work is Nabatean, and she's in Saudi land. Even if she thought what I thought and wrote it down, she would be expelled from the country, his career would be finished (travels, etc) But the main point in fact is that determine the origin of the Quranic script is not (at all) his field. She's an archaeologist who do not know Syriac.
    You do not even comprehend the concept of Anglo Saxon scholarship whereas F.B.C alludes to it. If it does not exist, why she alludes ? She's racist too? Go tell her...
    F.B.C has a response that she states very clearly in her article. But, as I thought, either you do not know reading (curious for a PhD guy) or better you do not know French.



    Mr. Altara: The article of F.B.C. you posted is from 1997. Nehme's paper including new transitional inscriptions is from 2010, and Al-Jallad's paper on the dot is from 2017. How possibly has she responded to these things before they were written and before these inscriptions were discovered? She anachronistically compares the Arabic script to Classical Nabataean instead of the transitional material published by Nehmé. Her dismissal of the lam-alif glyph is not at all convincing and doesn't address the point anyway. But you can say again "you don't know French", and I will reply that F.B.C.  did not address inscriptions that had not even been discovered yet.  So why don't you respond yourself rather than playing 19th century race scientist. And about that: let me get this straight: you believe there is some "Arab" gene that prevents Nehmé from thinking clearly about the Arabic script...Arabs are not a race or ethnic group so what 'genetics' are you even alluding to. She is a french national anyway so you cant even blame it on culture cultural upbringing. Altara, absurd isn't an argument. It is a description of your opinion on the genetic causes for script interpretation based on what you have said above.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2324 - July 02, 2018, 07:17 PM
    How possibly has she responded to these things before they were written and before these inscriptions were discovered?

    Who said that? Nobody (especially not me)...

    Her dismissal of the lam-alif glyph is not at all convincing

    For you. It could be interesting to know what  F.B.C. can think of  "the transitional material published by Nehmé. " I think (I can be wrong, of course) that she'd indicate a Syriac influence and not a genuine Arab development. Which is logic. Nabateans used Aramaic and not Arabic in much of their documents. It is then logic that they've been influenced by the Syriac script and that their script changed slowly due to the existence of the Syriac one.
    Therefore the Quranic script, the Harran script (568) the Zebed script (512) are coming from Syriac script, either adapted by the Nabateans  from their own script (possible) in a very long period of time (400 years),  either directly by Arabs without the Nabatean script (possible). One way or another, the Quranic script would not exist without the Syriac one. It is my main point here : without Syriac script, no Quranic script.

    Quote
    so what 'genetics' are you even alluding to.


    You're clearly outside of your competence with genetics : https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2325 - July 02, 2018, 11:35 PM
    Altara,

    Can you link the F. Briquel-Chatonnet article please? Maybe you already did but it would help if you repeated it...
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2326 - July 03, 2018, 08:06 AM
    Maybe get an Academia account and take it?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2327 - July 03, 2018, 10:44 AM
    Quote from: mundi on July 02, 2018, 11:35 PM
    Altara,

    Can you link the F. Briquel-Chatonnet article please? Maybe you already did but it would help if you repeated it...

    This article from 1997:

    De l'araméen à l'arabe: quelques réflexions sur la genèse de l'écriture arabe
    Which side are you on?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2328 - July 03, 2018, 12:24 PM
    Thank you Zeca! So nice of you to link the Briquel-Chatonnet article...

    And a very interesting one. Interesting to read a "generally accepted" view challenged in such a convincing way. That was in 1997. Has anyone gone further with this argument of the Aramaic-Arab script link?

    Indeed studying the individual letters and comparing them  as if these letters were the standardized result of several years of calligraphy drill with corporal punishment for the innocent children being taught is maybe not the right approach.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2329 - July 03, 2018, 12:34 PM
    Zeca is always there to save us!
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2330 - July 03, 2018, 06:37 PM
    Quote
    Has anyone gone further with this argument of the Aramaic-Arab script link?


    Jean Starcky, “Petra et la Nabatène,” Supplement au Dictionnaire de la Bible (Paris: Letouze et And, 1966), 7: 932–34; David Cohen, “Langues chamito-sdmitiques,” Les langues dans le monde ancient et moderne, ed. J. Perrot (Paris: CNRS, 1988), pp. 32–33; Gérard Troupeau, “Réflexions sur I’origine syriaque de l’écriture arabe,” Semitic Studies in Honor of Wolf Leslau (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1991), pp. 1562–70; Françoise Briquel-Chatonnet, “De l’araméen à l’arabe: quelques réflexions sur la genèse de l’écriture arabe,” in Scribes et manuscrits du Moyen-Orient, eds. François Déroche and Francis Richard (Paris: Bibliothèque nationale de France, 1997), pp. 136–149; Alfred-Louis de Prémare, Les Fondations de l’Islam (Paris: Seuil, 2002), pp. 231–45; Édouard-Marie Gallez, Le messie et son prophète: Aux origines de l’Islam, tome 2: “De Qumrân à Muḥammad,” (Versailles: Éditions de Paris, 2005); Robert M. Kerr, “Aramaisms in the Qurʾān and their Significance,” in Christmas in the Koran: Luxenberg, Syriac, and the Near Eastern Judeo-Christian Background of Islam, ed. Ibn Warraq (USA: Prometheus Books, 2014), pp. 145–234; Christoph Luxenberg, “Relics of Syro-Aramaic Letters in Early Qurʾānic Codices of the ḥiǧāzī and kūfī Style,” in Christmas in the Koran: Luxenberg, Syriac, and the Near Eastern Judeo-Christian Background of Islam, ed. Ibn Warraq (USA: Prometheus Books, 2014), pp. 547–583; ibid., “No Battle of “Badr”,” in Christmas in the Koran: Luxenberg, Syriac, and the Near Eastern Judeo-Christian Background of Islam, ed. Ibn Warraq (USA: Prometheus Books, 2014), pp. 469–503. See also ibid., The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran: A Contribution to the Decoding of the Language of the Koran (Berlin: Verlag Hans Schiler, 2007), originally in German, Die syro-aramäische Lesart des Koran: Ein Beitrag zur Entschlüsselung der Koransprache (Berlin: Verlag Hans Schiler, 2004, 1st ed. 2000).
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2331 - July 03, 2018, 08:23 PM
    Dear Mahgraye,

    Well done and thank you!
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2332 - July 03, 2018, 10:00 PM
    Maghraye and Altara,

    Are these articles on the topic of the script specifically?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2333 - July 04, 2018, 07:23 AM
    Quote from: mundi on July 03, 2018, 12:24 PM
    Thank you Zeca! So nice of you to link the Briquel-Chatonnet article...

    And a very interesting one. Interesting to read a "generally accepted" view challenged in such a convincing way. That was in 1997. Has anyone gone further with this argument of the Aramaic-Arab script link?

    Indeed studying the individual letters and comparing them  as if these letters were the standardized result of several years of calligraphy drill with corporal punishment for the innocent children being taught is maybe not the right approach.


    The very important article of Nehme 2010 https://www.academia.edu/2106858/_A_glimpse_of_the_development_of_the_Nabataean_script_into_Arabic_based_on_old_and_new_epigraphic_material_in_M.C.A._Macdonald_ed_The_development_of_Arabic_as_a_written_language_Supplement_to_the_Proceedings_of_the_Seminar_for_Arabian_Studies_40_._Oxford_47-88.

    The point is the script was to some extent standardized as new inscriptions stretching from jordan to najran show the same letter forms and conventions. Nehme shows the gradual evolution of the Arabic script from Nabataean in her paper, with inscriptions from every century. These were not known when F.B.C. produced her paper, nor was the pre-Islamic Arabic inscription from Dumat al-Jandal published last year, the Najran ones, or the Yazid inscription. I think the Yazid inscription is especially important because it gives a unique opportunity to detect Syriac influence -- the use of the dot to distinguish r and d and the dot is placed above the dal like Nabataean inscription (see Nehme's article), and not below like Syriac. a dot might seem like a small detail but it is a shibboleth between the two. there isn't a single letter shape in the arabic script that agrees with syriac against nabataean. nehme is publishing a book on this subject soon, with hundreds of new inscriptions. i agree that the argument today is simply that syriac 'inspired' the development of nabataean towards arabic, but inspired is not a scientific method and it is impossible to prove or disprove. it is possible to disprove syriac as direct source of the arabic script.

  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2334 - July 04, 2018, 09:32 AM
    Quote
    i agree that the argument today is simply that syriac 'inspired' the development of nabataean towards arabic, but inspired is not a scientific method and it is impossible to prove or disprove.

     The contact is the main language the Nabateans used : Imperial Aramaic taught to them by whom exactly? Aliens?
    Nope, by Syriac people. Who used what script? Martian script? Nope Syriac script. The influence is there. As time goes by the Nabatean script is changing and at the end (Quranic Script) he has nothing more to do with the Classical Nabatean Script. Nothing. So what is the origin?  Classical Nabatean? In fact not really, the script has totally shifted toward Syriac script. What is is interesting is that the more the script shift toward Syriac script, the more the language used is Arabic and no more Aramaic.



  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2335 - July 04, 2018, 09:52 AM
    Quote from: Altara on July 04, 2018, 09:32 AM
    The contact is the main language the Nabateans used : Imperial Aramaic taught to them by whom exactly? Aliens?
    Nope, by Syriac people. Who used what script? Martian script? Nope Syriac script. The influence is there.



    There is a great deal of confusion in your response. First what are syriac people? Do you mean Syrianc Christians? If so, the changes in Classical Nabataean towards Arabic begin in the pagan period, before the spread of Christianity. Second, why would Syriac writers teach imperial Aramaic?! They would teach Syriac, yet the Aramaic component of the Nabataean inscriptions is never Syriac dialect so this points away from influence. And why would they not just learn the syriac script rather than over centuries develop their own nabataean script? Finally, the nabataeans used Aramaic for centuries and it must have been taught locally in their scribal schools. they don't need outside teachers anymore than iranians today don't import saudis to teach them Arabic. Even though thr nabataean kingdom fell it seems that its identity continued as in the sabaic inscription published by arbach and schitecatte from 4th c. Nabat still refers to a place in NW Arabia.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2336 - July 04, 2018, 10:20 AM
    There is a great deal of confusion in your response.

    If you want a response from me, you will need to remove this phrase.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2337 - July 04, 2018, 11:07 AM
    Quote from: mundi on July 03, 2018, 10:00 PM
    Maghraye and Altara,

    Are these articles on the topic of the script specifically?


    Nope.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2338 - July 04, 2018, 11:14 AM
    Quote from: Altara on July 03, 2018, 08:23 PM
    Dear Mahgraye,

    Well done and thank you!


    My pleasure.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2339 - July 04, 2018, 02:33 PM
    Thread: https://mobile.twitter.com/AENJournal/status/1012328438718517249
    Quote
    This interesting re-interpretation of the Mohammad-Gabriel encounter was related to us several years ago; its ultimate source is unknown. Mohammad is in the cave and Gabriel comes to him and says --iqra'. Mohammad stunned replies: mâ anâ qâri'/bi-qâri'. The tradition takes this to mean 'i cannot read' but nowhere does it say that Gabriel brought something for him to read. Instead mâ could be taken as the interrogative 'what'. Mohammad may have been saying: 'what should I read'. Gabriel repeats himself and Mohammad still confused asks what to read. Then Gabriel says: iqra': bismi rabbika alladhî khalaq etc. "Invoke" the name of your lord who created ...". The point was that Gabriel was using the Aramaic meaning of iqra' "invoke" and not the Arabic. Mohammad's confusion is meant to show that he didn't know Aramaic! i.e. he wasn't a religious man/clergy/etc. It's a bilingual pun. The Quran's multilingual original audience would have gotten it but later exegetes removed from this context were confused and built upon it fanciful stories of illiteracy.

    Quote
    Every pre- Islamic Arabic inscription has Aramaic components, and Aramaic was a liturgical language in both Christianity and Judaism -- both monotheistic faiths of the Peninsula. Aramaic was widely known in Arabia.

    Quote
    You are still operating on this outdated notion that Aramaic is foreign to Arabia and we need a point of contact. Aramaic was a language of Arabia. Multilingualism is the norm and no Arabic is attested before Islam without an Aramaic component. The revised story fits that context

    Which side are you on?
  • Previous page 1 ... 76 77 7879 80 ... 370 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »