I've been lurking, but Altara's posts once again draw me out.
Good move.
Dearest Altara: I am curious how you know that Mehdi Shaddel is a Muslim
He is (at least) culturally. Ask him where he comes from on Twitter.
and that his beliefs motivate whatever you are accusing him of doing.
It does not seem to me that I accuse him of something. Of what exactly? Reread me.
His discussion of Muhammad as al-Nabi al-Ummi is very enlightening and does not show any adherence to tradition.
Apparently he really gets very defensive when some core Islamic values are touched, but is quite ok to question some less fundamental ones
, says Mundi (above) and I think he's right.
What study have you produced Altara?
Lulz, what the point? Does I insult qualified, trained, graduated people on Twitter whereas I'm nothing? It is the Shaddel case, not mine.
What is your doctoral qualification?
Again, it's the wrong path, I insult nobody. My point here is Shaddel, nothing else.
insulting everyone as if the truth of the matter was revealed to you by Gabriel.
Lololol How exactly I insult? What I say (exactly...)?
If you have all the answers, then publish something worth reading rather than repeating the same line : no zem zem, etc
.
Do I say that I have all the answers? Nope. I give my point, that's all.
I do not need to "applaud" van Putten. I generally "applaud" nobody... When I'm agree (or not) I say it, that's all.
Fortunately that Jallad does not deny the presence of Aramaic language (about the Nabateans...)! He seems difficult to deny it. But it is not (at all) what I say about him, I say that he has (and he is not alone, with the anglo saxon world with him) an obsession to affirm that the earliest Nabatean script of the 1st c. is the genuine and pure origin of the Quranic script. And I say : nope. I do not think so, even I think the contrary. I think that Syriac script got a big influence on (maybe) the Nabatean script of the 4 and 5th c. (maybe before) (that deny Jallad et al.)And that it's this influence which has given the inscriptions :
https://www.islamic-awareness.org/history/islam/inscriptions/zebed.htmlhttps://www.islamic-awareness.org/history/islam/inscriptions/harran.htmlwhich is (
grosso modo) the same script as the Quranic script we can see on the manuscripts 100 years later. Jallad et al. does not explain scientifically how this evolution (Nabatean 1st/2nd c. to the Quranic script) could have been possible : you have to take what they said for granted and not asking questions.
In another word, trust them. Why they do not explain it? Because they are
incapable to do so. This is not scholarship to "trust". Scholarship is not "trusting", not faith, it is rational, coherent, logical explications. I'm sorry, there is none here.
And Anthony and Webb being Arabic "teachers"
Altara, what are you talking about? Neither of them teach Arabic, both are true historians. I am tempted to ask Anthony on twitter if he is an Arabic teacher
Studying what have studied Anthony/Webb (and much more like them) is "language and civilization". Others in the field comes from "Religious studies", "Divinity", "Theology" , etc. That is why Webb is said to have studied "Arabic" in SOAS ; there is none mention of "History" at all in this word.. Studying "History" is not studying a specific "language and civilization" like they did. At all. It is studying "History" as what is "History", what is a source, sources criticism, historical methodology, etc. And in the same time studying
all the historical periods to understand how things works. And aside you can learn language you want, etc. "Language and civilization" in general or of one period is not at all be trained as an "historian". At all. It is used in France in a special school, to train, you know what? Diplomats and embassy workers at middle and high grade. Nothing to see with "history".
That Webb/Anthony et al. consider themselves as "historians" and are called (and considered) like this, why not : in my view, they are not. Because they were trained not correctly.
There are, in the field of Early Islam and Quranic studies few historians : Donner, Borrut, Brelaud, Hawting... Few.
Wansbrough was not an historian, Reynolds, (Crone?) Dye, Segovia, etc. It did not prevented me to read them. But I understand better why, Quranic studies and Early Islam are in this state.
So yes, Webb/Anthony (and others...) are (for me ...) teachers of Arabic.
Topic: Qur'anic studies today