Only 5 pages of the article. Lazy to see the video...
The inscription is located in taif, not in mekka. it seems they dismiss the point.
Ofc.
it is purely monotheistic and is differentiated from the north west arabian ones in the way they invoke the monotheistic god
Inscription 1:
No 'Mecca', no 'Muhammad' no 'Ka'ba'.
if the inscription was left nearby a shrine, it means the shrine was a sort of monotheistic shrine
Yes.
Figure 3—p.5.
One remarks that Iraq where Arabs were numerous (vassals of the Persians, etc.) is (totally) empty of inscriptions because lacking of exploration and layers of heavily populated constructions. For me... it is a real issue in the discipline (among others...)
the hima inscription is dated with the northern, bosra dating system, meaning that those who made it were not locals, but travellers
Ofc.
Of course is pre-islamic as it does not show any evidence of a islamic formulas, rather the opposite, later islamic invokations show to have drawn from this phraseology
Id.
they are confident the inscription is evidence of the use of this arabic in the area and that the quanic text was composed there this makes no sense as the quranic text is heavily engaging with chrisitan literature and this inscription as well (like any other in the area) do show any christian presence
Unfortunately the truth is that language can be used everywhere, by foreign people, etc. The place attest of nothing .
if the arabic requires a scribal education, do we have evidence of scribal centers in the area of taif?
production of texts, writings?
Nope.
it seems more probable that these people were travellers
Yes, all inscriptions apart Sabaic Yemen the sole sedentary people are nomads/voyagers.
al jallad seems to be confident that syriac had no influence on the formation of arabic and that it is 100% only derived from natabtean it does not seem that all scholars agree with this as he says (murad)
Briquel-Chatonnet is not agree on that point.
I am not entering the discussion about the association with companions, indeed reynolds does not seem convinced by this reynolds raised some critical questions which al jallad seems to be dismissing quickly.
Jallad dismiss what is embarrassing him...
where is this arabic coming from? where do we have the scribal centers producing it and with enough power to impose is onto the other arabics?
(For me...) it is a language with some idiosyncrasies like the dozens others arabic languages . It is (surtout) an artificial literary language which have never been spoken by anyone.
Topic: Qur'anic studies today