Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

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


Berlin car crasher
by zeca
Yesterday at 11:10 PM

Lights on the way
by akay
Yesterday at 07:30 AM

Do humans have needed kno...
December 20, 2024, 12:15 PM

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
December 19, 2024, 10:26 AM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
December 17, 2024, 07:04 PM

News From Syria
December 15, 2024, 01:02 PM

AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
December 11, 2024, 01:25 PM

New Britain
December 08, 2024, 10:30 AM

Ashes to beads: South Kor...
December 03, 2024, 09:44 PM

Gaza assault
by zeca
November 27, 2024, 07:13 PM

What music are you listen...
by zeca
November 24, 2024, 06:05 PM

Marcion and the introduct...
by zeca
November 19, 2024, 11:36 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: what we really know about early Islamic History ?

 (Read 19564 times)
  • Previous page 1 23 4 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • what we really know about early Islamic History ?
     Reply #30 - May 09, 2015, 12:05 AM

    What is the primary source evidence for it though?

    Here, unfortunately, we're running up against the lack of primary sources for ALL of the 620-645 CE period in the Near Eastern deserts. Same goes for the Ridda - the Ridda might be even more problematic, since our "best" source is Sayf bin 'Umar (edited by Tabari).

    So I actually don't get much involved in 'oo did what to 'oo in those decades. I'm happy to say I have no idea. Well... not exactly happy, more like frustrated. I console myself with the knowledge that the later decades can keep me busy enough...

    For Qutham: Djait cites Baladhuri's Ansab al-Ashraf. Lammens cites Ibn al-Jawzi (in two works, "al-Wafa' bi-ahwal al-Mustafa'" - then in a Leiden manuscript - and "Talqih fuhum ahl al-athar"), and then his grandson Sibt ibn al-Jawzi's "Mirat al-zaman"; Barizi also in manuscript (Berlin 2569); Maqrizi's "Imta al-Asma"; and an anonymous sira once more in manuscript (Berlin 9602).

    Hunting down where (or if) these works are being published, now, and then digging through to find where "Qutham" is mentioned would be... kind of a p.i.t.a. Such is life in this field.
  • what we really know about early Islamic History ?
     Reply #31 - May 09, 2015, 05:18 AM

    Donner have some good arguments against alternative theories , which i am afraid some of them have a religious agenda

    Non-existence of Prophet Theory : This wilfully chooses to ignore early non-Muslim
    sources like the Doctrina Jacobi and the fragment from Matthew the Presbyter, as
    well as .relatively early chronicles like those of Sebeos and John Bar Penkaye, all
    sources known for many years (and used by more responsible revisionist authors like
    Crone and Cook). And, to go a bit beyond the time of the Prophet, the assertion of
    Nevo and Popp, for example, that the early caliphs are also fictions, ignores the
    evidence of Chinese annals (which mention the murder of 'Uthman) and the recent
    discovery of an inscription/graffito that mentions 'Umar. Nevo's assertion that the
    Byzantines withdrew from Syria intentionally (and even, in his view, encouraged the
    emergence of sectarian forms of Christianity as they did so) strikes one as, shall we
    say, out of character for the emperors in Constantinople. Popp's and Luxenberg's
    assertion that the Umayyads were Christians is also hard to accept. Popp's claim that
    the Nestorian tribesmen whom we later come to known as the Umayyads would have
    found such ready support among the Monophysites of Syria and elsewhere seems
    far-fetched, in view of the fact that Monophysites and Nestorians had spent the
    previous century or so pouring polemical vitriol on each other (and not only on the
    Chalcedonians) for heresy. One also does not understand how these supposedly
    Nestorian tribesmen, formerly of the Sasanian army, made the theological shift to a
    non-trinitarian outlook on their way to becoming the Umayyads, as Luxenberg
    suggests, since the Nestorians certainly did not reject the notion of the Trinity.

    Late crystallization theory This is demonstrably wrong; for one thing, the
    Qur'an lacks the kinds of anachronisms that would have been inescapable had the
    text not stabilized before the first civil war (Fitna) in 34/656 to 40/661.  Moreover,
    recent work with some of the oldest extant Qur'an manuscripts seems to confirm
    that the text was already established as scripture no later than the end of the first
    century AH. 11 On the other hand, the traditional view that the whole Qur'an was
    the subject of secure oral recitation from the time of the Prophet must also be
    wrong, because recent work has shown that some parts of the text, at least, could
    only have been transmitted in written form, without the benefit of a controlling
    tradition of recitation.12 So, while the basic rasm text must have been written
    down fairly early, its antecedents may have included both oral materials and
    written materials, some of which may go back to the Prophet or may even antedate
    the Prophet. And they may (or may not) be diverse in origin

    "My own sense is that the tradition's presentation of
    the period following the hijra is more credible than it is for the period before the
    hijra, reports about which seem overwhelmingly legendary in character. Furthermore, in the process of reworking and redaction, to which early reports may have
    been subjected, the elements that would most likely have been subjected to the
    greatest modification (in order to bring them in line with later realities and needs)
    would be matters relating to theological doctrines and communal orientations -·
    precisely those dimensions of the historical record that would be most crucial to
    understanding the historical context of the Qur'an."
  • what we really know about early Islamic History ?
     Reply #32 - May 09, 2015, 05:44 AM

    You know Musivore, my answer to such 'how could' questions is always the same:  Look outside Islam, and ask the same type of question for other religions.  That usually gives the answer.

    Can the bitter rifts in early Christianity be explained by false narratives?  Actually it's hard to find anything BUT rifts about such false narratives.  Religious history is always primarily Salvation History -- Heilsgeschichte -- and as such it primarily consists of attempts to explain why something that was *not* the case should be *believed* to have been the case.

    I see the Shia problem in reverse:  Why is there so *little* disagreement about it?  That is, it surprises me that Shiites and Sunnis are so close in what they accept regarding core Islamic narratives.  Their primary disagreements are not over core early Islamic history, but rather over legitimacy and religious authority at a relatively late point.  I think of this as a furious contestation over rightful leadership of the emerging new political and religious communities, in which different factions used different strategies to assert their rightful place of eminence.  That is not really much different than what orthodox Islamic history claims, actually.


    or simply those core narrative have some historical truth.

     
  • what we really know about early Islamic History ?
     Reply #33 - May 09, 2015, 09:03 AM

    A test would be to look carefully at the Sunni Shia split.  Do they reflect respective influences of the Persian and Roman Empires?

    So might the quran be an agreed text of the two factions?  A Diplomatic text?

    When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.


    A.A. Milne,

    "We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"
  • what we really know about early Islamic History ?
     Reply #34 - May 09, 2015, 01:51 PM

    Hatoush, Donner is right on both those points.  The problem with those two theories is not so much that they have an agenda as that they are contrary to the evidence.

    If you are looking for scholars who are both critical and objective, Donner and Gabriel Said Reynolds are probably your best bets IMO.
  • what we really know about early Islamic History ?
     Reply #35 - May 09, 2015, 02:29 PM

    Zaotar

    thanks for your feedback, do you think a breakthrough is possible to understand this early Islamic history, unless by miracle we find new archaeological evidence.

    what do you think about this model, accepting the basic Mecca/Medina narrative, and assume there was was some kind of "oral interpreted bible" used by communities in mecca.

    by the way, why do you have those strong opinion against Mecca ?
  • what we really know about early Islamic History ?
     Reply #36 - May 09, 2015, 02:54 PM

    I think it is possible to understand the earliest beginnings and the later period (the part Zimriel is interested in).  The middle part, I think may never be possible to disentangle.  In this, I think the emergence of Islam closely parallels the emergence of Christianity.  We can explain the environment it emerged in, and show how it is derivative of older features.  We can explain the later movements, when we have good texts.  But the transition is hidden because all of the texts which document it *are trying their best to obscure it* -- all we have is Heilsgeschichte.  So the historical Muhammad is no more accessible to us than the historical Jesus, sadly.

    The reason I have such a strong opinion against Mecca is because it makes the Qur'an's development incomprehensible.  And that is exactly what it is supposed to do!  The entire reason for the Meccan narrative is to make it impossible to understand how the Qur'an emerged, so that you will conclude that God has handed it down, isolated from any human society.  You are supposed to isolate the Qur'an from its late antique context, and situate it within a remote pagan valley.  Once the Meccan narrative is abandoned, and the Qur'an is analyzed within a late antique context, it becomes relatively easy to explain many of the most puzzling and complex aspects of the Qur'an and its development.  With the Meccan narrative in place as a bedrock assumption, by contrast, the Qur'an's origins and its earliest textual layers become essentially random and incoherent, which allows it to be used for theological speculations.

    Medina does not pose similar problems in understanding the Qur'an, and makes far better sense, so it is not nearly as problematic, and can be reasonably accepted as part of the historical background of the Qur'an's compilation (this does not mean it *was* the background, but just that it at least makes sense, which cannot be said for Mecca).
  • what we really know about early Islamic History ?
     Reply #37 - May 09, 2015, 03:37 PM

    Zaotar
    ...................

    by the way, why do you have those strong opinion against Mecca ?

     
    dear hatoush.,   .Zaotar is a lawyer.. student/writer/enquirer  of Islamic history., Such people can not answer our questions in a direct way.. because they are very diplomatic in their approach ..

    So let this cult leader Mullah yeezevee answer your question..

    Quote
    Q: why do you have those strong opinion against Mecca

    Ans: because there was No Mecca and there was no "Muhammad" in early Quran/ early part of Islam.. The so-called Meccan Islam.. if you carefully read Quran., out of 114 chapters and some 6300 verses ., The name "Muhammad was mentioned at four times .. only four times and the verses are

    Quote
     (1) muhammad is no more than a messenger: many Were the messenger that passed away before him. If he died or were slain, will ye then Turn back on your heels? If any did turn back on his heels, not the least harm will he do to Allah; but Allah (on the other hand) will swiftly reward those who (serve Him) with gratitude. ............(Aal-e-Imran, Chapter #3, Verse #144)


    (2) muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Messenger of Allah, and the Seal of the Prophets: and Allah has full knowledge of all things. ............(Al-Ahzab, Chapter #33, Verse #40)
     

    (3) But those who believe and work deeds of righteousness, and believe in the (Revelation) sent down to muhammad - for it is the Truth from their Lord,- He will remove from them their ills and improve their condition. ..............(  Muhammad, Chapter #47, Verse #2)
     

    (4) muhammad is the messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other. Thou wilt see them bow and prostrate themselves (in prayer), seeking Grace from Allah and (His) Good Pleasure. On their faces are their marks, (being) the traces of their prostration. This is their similitude in the Taurat; and their similitude in the Gospel is: like a seed which sends forth its blade, then makes it strong; it then becomes thick, and it stands on its own stem, (filling) the sowers with wonder and delight. As a result, it fills the Unbelievers with rage at them. Allah has promised those among them who believe and do righteous deeds forgiveness, and a great Reward.  ..........(Al-Fath, Chapter #48, Verse #29)


    And all those verses come  from so-called Madinan Quran    So, there is no "Muhammad" in Meccan Quran and There was NO Mecca ( may be some Becca was there ) and there was No Muhammad in Mecca....

    and Allah knows the best.. hail hitler.  
    yeezevee


    well........... heil.. hail.. hell .. heel....whatever...............

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • what we really know about early Islamic History ?
     Reply #38 - May 09, 2015, 03:49 PM

    Hatoush, Donner is right on both those points.  The problem with those two theories is not so much that they have an agenda as that they are contrary to the evidence.


    I would dispute Donner on this one: "Late crystallization theory ... is demonstrably wrong; for one thing, the Qur'an lacks the kinds of anachronisms that would have been inescapable had the text not stabilized before the first civil war (Fitna) in 34/656 to 40/661."

    The non-anachronisms which Donner delivered to us in that chapter in "Narratives" (Darwin Press, 1998) mainly turn out to be lexical. It would be like Joseph Smith writing "thee" and "thou" into the Book of Mormon to make it look older than it is.

    Also, I think there are lots of anachronisms: satirical references to leaders of one's own people who had set themselves up like gods (i.e., to caliphs: sura 28), a retreat to the House of God which retreat isn't in the sira and didn't happen until Ibn al-Zubayr ran to Mecca (sura 14), disputes over the qibla which disputes continued up to the founding of Wasit's friday-mosque (suras 2, 41).
  • what we really know about early Islamic History ?
     Reply #39 - May 09, 2015, 04:30 PM

    Just remembered that Muhammad,according to traditional islamic sources, traveled with his uncle as a child to Syria, where they met a monk.
    Quote
    For Abd-al-Masih al-Kindi, who calls him Sergius and writes that he later called himself Nestorius, Bahira was a Nasorean, a group usually conflated with the Nestorians. After the 9th century, Byzantine polemicists refer to him as Baeira or Pakhyras, both being derivatives of the name Bahira, and describe him as an iconoclast. Sometimes Bahira is called a Jacobite or an Arian. The early Christian polemical biographies of Muhammad share in claiming that any supposed illiteracy of Muhammad did not imply that he received religious instruction solely from the angel Gabriel, and often identified Bahira as a secret, religious teacher to Muhammad.[5]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahira#cite_note-6

    Is that why the Quran calls Christians Nasara? Is it possible that these stories are partially true including Muhammads travels during his time working for Khadija in Syria?
  • what we really know about early Islamic History ?
     Reply #40 - May 09, 2015, 04:43 PM

    Just remembered that Muhammad,  according to traditional islamic sources, traveled with his uncle as a child to Syria, where they met a monk.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahira#cite_note-6
    ................

    That is neither "Muhammad" of Quran nor "Muhammad" of present Islam . It was a story about a boy and his grand father.



    that lady wrote tons  of stories and made  millions of pounds... and that is as recent as 1990s

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • what we really know about early Islamic History ?
     Reply #41 - May 09, 2015, 04:52 PM

    Zim I think it really depends on what you consider anachronisms.  I consider Mecca to be a clear anachronism.  The Qur'an certainly contains what I would call many anachronisms about infighting between factions that are waving different surahs at each, and also anachronisms about holy geography (like the qibla), interpolations reflecting anachronistic theology, etc.  I think Donner accepts all these possible anachronisms, or at least recognizes that they are consistent with the text.

    But the Qur'an does not, to my mind, display anachronisms that clearly refer to Umayyad era states or leaders, at least not ones that are the 'big names' like Mu'awiya onward.  On this point, I am more Donner-esque than many critical scholars.  I also have more doubt about the historicity and accuracy of the "First Fitna," one cannot doubt there were battles between factions, but to what extent they are faithfully reported, I have little opinion.

    Actually one of the strongest features that points towards an early crystallization, and this is perhaps the only really good argument that I think Nicolai Sinai makes in his article on the subject of the Qur'an's compilation date, is that the Qur'an is so phenomenally devoid of details that resemble the classic Islamic narrative.  Only a few uses of the name MHMD, one mention of Zayd .... not a single other contemporary Muslim.  Just one arguable reference to Mecca.  One use of Yathrib.  No mention of the hijra at all (an almost unfathomable omission).  It just doesn't look, at all, like a book that was written to express the main Islamic narrative.  And this strongly suggests, to my mind, that it was largely compiled prior to the emergence of that narrative, and rather crudely adapted at the very end to include some anachronistic traces of it.
  • what we really know about early Islamic History ?
     Reply #42 - May 09, 2015, 04:55 PM

    Just remembered that Muhammad,according to traditional islamic sources, traveled with his uncle as a child to Syria, where they met a monk.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahira#cite_note-6

    Is that why the Quran calls Christians Nasara? Is it possible that these stories are partially true including Muhammads travels during his time working for Khadija in Syria?


    Bahira is about as blatant and legendary of a story as you could imagine.  It's basically a way to explain the Christian nature of many aspects of early Islam, and to present Islam as a sort of prophetic fulfillment of the Christian gospels, given a stamp of approval by a Syriac monk.
  • what we really know about early Islamic History ?
     Reply #43 - May 09, 2015, 04:57 PM

    [double post]
  • what we really know about early Islamic History ?
     Reply #44 - May 09, 2015, 05:11 PM

    On the other hand, the traditional view that the whole Qur'an was
    the subject of secure oral recitation from the time of the Prophet must also be
    wrong, because recent work has shown that some parts of the text, at least, could
    only have been transmitted in written form
    , without the benefit of a controlling
    tradition of recitation.


     Afro
  • what we really know about early Islamic History ?
     Reply #45 - May 10, 2015, 12:43 PM


    it seems Robert Holyand is more optimistic about a better understanding of the early milieu of quran

    https://www.academia.edu/3303289/Writing_the_Biography_of_Muhammad



    "Though the apparent stalemate over determining the authenticity of the Muslim tradition may seem intractable, the outlook for progress in writing the biography of Muhammad is not all gloomy. In particular, advances in the state of our knowledge about the Prophet’s life are to be expected from archaeology. Excavations, such as those presently underway at Tayma and Hegra (Mada w in Salih), will tell us more of the social and economic conditions and material cutlure of northwest Arabia in the Late Roman period.
     
    And epigraphic discoveries can shed light on a whole range of different topics relevant to Muhammad’s world. For example, the references in the Quran to the irrigated lands of Saba (Sheba) destroyed by a flood (34:15–17), theraiders on Mecca coming from Yemen with elephants in their ranks (105),‘the people in ditches’ burned in the fields of Najran (85:4–7) and the subjectsof the dynastic rulers of Himyar known as the tubba (44:37, 50:14)demonstrate that the Hijaz was influenced by its southern neighbour.
     
    And indeed new finds of inscriptions in Yemen are making it clear that there isa substantial body of religious vocabulary common to the Quran and the epigraphic record of South Arabia, most famously the three ‘daughters of God’ (cf. 53:19–20) and the name Muhammad, but also a number of ritual practices and regulations.

    Looking to the north, a new generation of skilled Saudi scholars have been conducting highly professional and scientific epigraphic surveys that are elucidating the transformation of the Nabataean Aramaic script into what we would call the Arabic script, a process that was already under way long before Islam and that would seem to have begun in northwest Arabia.
    66
    Such developments may not advance us in the traditional sense that we will learn more or become more sure of the details of Muhammad’s life, but it will take us forward in the sense that we will become better informed about the world in which he lived and its relations to the other worlds that coexisted with it, with the result that we would at least understand more clearly where to situate this historically crucial figure as regards the intellectual and religious currents of the wider world in which he lived."


  • what we really know about early Islamic History ?
     Reply #46 - May 10, 2015, 01:58 PM

    Hatoush I think Hoyland is right that we can learn more about the milieu, but even he concedes it's unlikely to throw any real light on Muhammad's biography or the Qur'an's origins.  Ironically I think most of the 'historical' items he talks about are fictional, btw.  There was no elephant raid on Mecca -- Q 105 is a homily on 3 Maccabees, not history.  Manfred Kropp has shown, compellingly to my mind, that the reference to 'people burned in ditches' in Q 85 isn't a reference to Najran, but rather to people destined to hell, 'inferno leute.'  Likewise the 'Tubba.'  Couple of articles:

    http://www.academia.edu/1823617/_People_of_powerful_South_Arabian_kings_or_just_people_of_their_kind_we_annihilated_before_Proper_noun_or_common_noun_in_Qur%CA%BE%C4%81n_44_37_and_50_14

    This one's in German:

    http://www.academia.edu/2492889/Koranische_Texte_als_Sprechakte_am_Beispiel_der_Sure_85

    The thing with Hoyland is that he is a superb historian, but (to my mind) a fairly limited Qur'anic scholar.  He keeps analyzing the archaeology of the region in the assumption that it will help us analyze the background of classic Islamic narratives, but the archaeology keeps showing a remarkable continuity in the material culture of Palestine, no real 'massive invasions' of the kind reported by Islamic tradition, a lack of serious Jewish or Christian presence in the Hijaz, etc.  All of which Hoyland himself accurately reports.  So in a negative sense I'd agree with Hoyland that the archaeology will be insightful, because it has not shown any real trace of the orthodox Islamic narrative on the emergence of Islam -- rather it's shown a fairly striking continuity with existing culture and religious practice, and I'd expect it will continue to show exactly that. 

    The one area where I think we might have significant odds of better understanding is in epigraphic discoveries that bear on the *political order* of the community.  There is an early inscription that appears to refer to 'Umar, and that's indeed pretty exciting (Donner mentions that at the top of what you quoted above).  I think we should be able to find more such inscriptions, and they could help us better understand the early political conflicts.  But they will not likely bear on Muhammad or the Qur'an.
  • what we really know about early Islamic History ?
     Reply #47 - May 10, 2015, 02:12 PM

    Quote
    ‘it would be generally true,’ Brock observed, ‘to say that the Syriac sources of this period see the conquests primarily as Arab, and not Muslim.’


    Is anyone looking for an Arab expansion that later becomes institutionalised complete with its new fangled religion, (religions - Shia and Sunni? so the religions are results of internal politics?) as all new religions do, claiming it is ancient?  I am reminded of Baden Powell commenting that traditions are best invented and introduced over night!

    When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.


    A.A. Milne,

    "We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"
  • what we really know about early Islamic History ?
     Reply #48 - May 10, 2015, 02:36 PM

    Hatoush I think Hoyland is right that we can learn more about the milieu, but even he concedes it's unlikely to throw any real light on Muhammad's biography or the Qur'an's origins.  Ironically I think most of the 'historical' items he talks about are fictional, btw.  There was no elephant raid on Mecca -- Q 105 is a homily on 3 Maccabees, not history.  Manfred Kropp has shown, compellingly to my mind, that the reference to 'people burned in ditches' in Q 85 isn't a reference to Najran, but rather to people destined to hell, 'inferno leute.'  Likewise the 'Tubba.'  Couple of articles:

    http://www.academia.edu/1823617/_People_of_powerful_South_Arabian_kings_or_just_people_of_their_kind_we_annihilated_before_Proper_noun_or_common_noun_in_Qur%CA%BE%C4%81n_44_37_and_50_14

    This one's in German:

    http://www.academia.edu/2492889/Koranische_Texte_als_Sprechakte_am_Beispiel_der_Sure_85

    The thing with Hoyland is that he is a superb historian, but (to my mind) a fairly limited Qur'anic scholar.  He keeps analyzing the archaeology of the region in the assumption that it will help us analyze the background of classic Islamic narratives, but the archaeology keeps showing a remarkable continuity in the material culture of Palestine, no real 'massive invasions' of the kind reported by Islamic tradition, a lack of serious Jewish or Christian presence in the Hijaz, etc.  All of which Hoyland himself accurately reports.  So in a negative sense I'd agree with Hoyland that the archaeology will be insightful, because it has not shown any real trace of the orthodox Islamic narrative on the emergence of Islam -- rather it's shown a fairly striking continuity with existing culture and religious practice, and I'd expect it will continue to show exactly that. 

    The one area where I think we might have significant odds of better understanding is in epigraphic discoveries that bear on the *political order* of the community.  There is an early inscription that appears to refer to 'Umar, and that's indeed pretty exciting (Donner mentions that at the top of what you quoted above).  I think we should be able to find more such inscriptions, and they could help us better understand the early political conflicts.  But they will not likely bear on Muhammad or the Qur'an.



    ok, so how do you explain the haj which is an Arab pre Islamic traditions,  the reference to polytheism, which we have a good archaeological reference to it in Arabia, the non biblical prophet like Salah.

    for me i find it much easier to assume a christian-Jewish, hanif monotheist cult  presence in Hijaz than to imagine the text emerged outside of Arabia.
  • what we really know about early Islamic History ?
     Reply #49 - May 10, 2015, 03:27 PM

    Hatoush, we don't have any mention of Mecca before the end of the 7th century. All of the supposed "pre-Islamic" haj traditions come from Islamic "Heilsgeschichte" historians writing in the 8th and 9th centuries. These were likely inserted into the story to give the new religion's rituals the "feel" of being antique and native to Arabia, not stolen from the Christians and Jews of the Levant. Polytheism was pretty much the base religion everywhere before religions like Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism came on the scene, so it's not surprise that polytheism was in Arabia before the coming of monotheism. Also the Saudis have never allowed and significant archaeological digs in Mecca, and if they did I don't think what they find would fit the Islamic narrative. This actually IMO is one reason why the Saudis seem so bent on erasing Arabia's classical archaeological past and building shopping malls over it. As for Saleh, Zoatar has made the argument that this was another archtype accepted by later Muslims as having been a real person, he would know more about that than  I,

    And it's funny you bring up archaeology, since this is one of the most damning indicments of the traditional Islamic narrative. According to Islamic Heilsgeschichte, the Hijaz was just crawling with Jews, Christians of various types, "hanafis", and other proto-Muslim monotheists. Yet what archeology has been done there reveals little Christianity in the Hijaz and an almost complete paucity of Judaism. The "christian-Jewish, hanif monotheist cult" you posit has no support in history, but for Muhammad's jihadi community in Yathrib around the time of the Arab conquests.

    إطلب العلم ولو في الصين

    Es sitzt keine Krone so fest und so hoch,
    Der mutige Springer erreicht sie doch.

    I don't give a fuck about your war, or your President.
  • what we really know about early Islamic History ?
     Reply #50 - May 10, 2015, 03:41 PM

    Quote
    how do you explain the haj which is an Arab pre Islamic tradition

    I'm open to the arguments - I don't really have a set view on most of this - but is there actually any evidence for the haj having pre-Islamic origins? That is evidence outside the later Islamic traditions. Absence of evidence wouldn't necessarily mean the haj didn't exist in an earlier form, more that its existence would be uncertain.

    Edit: cross posted with countjulian
  • what we really know about early Islamic History ?
     Reply #51 - May 10, 2015, 04:02 PM

    Brilliant thoughts expressed. Thank you.

    No free mixing of the sexes is permitted on these forums or via PM or the various chat groups that are operating.

    Women must write modestly and all men must lower their case.

    http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?425649-Have-some-Hayaa-%28modesty-shame%29-people!
  • what we really know about early Islamic History ?
     Reply #52 - May 10, 2015, 04:17 PM

    Also the Saudis have never allowed and significant archaeological digs in Mecca, and if they did I don't think what they find would fit the Islamic narrative. This actually IMO is one reason why the Saudis seem so bent on erasing Arabia's classical archaeological past and building shopping malls over it.


    Jesus Christ... How is this even possible?

    Are we going to just stand here and look at them while they rewrite the history to fit their religion?

    Is there anything left? Where do the rubbles go?
  • what we really know about early Islamic History ?
     Reply #53 - May 10, 2015, 04:18 PM

    ^ We've stood here and watched them do a whole lot worse, so unfortunately I reckon we will.
  • what we really know about early Islamic History ?
     Reply #54 - May 10, 2015, 04:22 PM

    Zim I think it really depends on what you consider anachronisms.  I consider Mecca to be a clear anachronism.  The Qur'an certainly contains what I would call many anachronisms about infighting between factions that are waving different surahs at each, and also anachronisms about holy geography (like the qibla), interpolations reflecting anachronistic theology, etc.  I think Donner accepts all these possible anachronisms, or at least recognizes that they are consistent with the text.

    But the Qur'an does not, to my mind, display anachronisms that clearly refer to Umayyad era states or leaders, at least not ones that are the 'big names' like Mu'awiya onward.  On this point, I am more Donner-esque than many critical scholars.  I also have more doubt about the historicity and accuracy of the "First Fitna," one cannot doubt there were battles between factions, but to what extent they are faithfully reported, I have little opinion.

    Actually one of the strongest features that points towards an early crystallization, and this is perhaps the only really good argument that I think Nicolai Sinai makes in his article on the subject of the Qur'an's compilation date, is that the Qur'an is so phenomenally devoid of details that resemble the classic Islamic narrative.  Only a few uses of the name MHMD, one mention of Zayd .... not a single other contemporary Muslim.  Just one arguable reference to Mecca.  One use of Yathrib.  No mention of the hijra at all (an almost unfathomable omission).  It just doesn't look, at all, like a book that was written to express the main Islamic narrative.  And this strongly suggests, to my mind, that it was largely compiled prior to the emergence of that narrative, and rather crudely adapted at the very end to include some anachronistic traces of it.


    I think we should make a distinction between compilation and authorship here. I agree that much of the Quran is really old, probably much older than Muhammad himself. On the other hand, the idea of putting all of the particular material of the modern Quran into a book and calling it a holy book seems to have emerged slowly towards the end of the 7th and beginning of the 8th centuries. That great chart you have shows how certain suwar are missing from early Qurans. The fact that so little is made of contemporary Umayyad leaders IMO points to how conservatively this material was viewed by the compilers. The people who put it into the Quran seemed to have viewed what they had in front of them as holy, and were extremely reluctant to make changes with it, even when it went against the crystallizing orthodoxy.

    إطلب العلم ولو في الصين

    Es sitzt keine Krone so fest und so hoch,
    Der mutige Springer erreicht sie doch.

    I don't give a fuck about your war, or your President.
  • what we really know about early Islamic History ?
     Reply #55 - May 10, 2015, 04:30 PM

    Jesus Christ... How is this even possible?

    Are we going to just stand here and look at them while they rewrite the history to fit their religion?

    Is there anything left? Where do the rubbles go?


    It's possible because the whole world is more concerned with getting them to stop arresting people for going to church, whipping women for sex before marriage, and executing hapless migrant workers with beheading. Even though I would agree that this is much worse, their destruction of classical Muslim and paleo-Muslims sites is also an absolute crime against humanity:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_early_Islamic_heritage_sites_in_Saudi_Arabia

    Destroyed sites[edit]
    Below is an incomplete list of destroyed sites:

    Mosques[edit]
    The mosque at the grave of Sayyid al-Shuhada’ Hamza ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib.[13]
    The Mosque of Fatima Zahra.[13]
    The Mosque of al-Manaratain.[13]
    Mosque and tomb of Sayyid Imam al-Uraidhi ibn Ja‘far al-Sadiq, destroyed by dynamite on August 13, 2002.
    Four mosques at the site of the Battle of the Trench in Medina.
    The Mosque of Abu Rasheed.[19]
    Salman al-Farsi Mosque, in Medina.[19]
    Raj'at ash-Shams Mosque, in Medina.[19]

    Cemeteries and tombs[edit]
    Jannat al-Baqi in Medina, leveled, still open access for men only.
    Jannat al-Mu'alla, the ancient cemetery at Mecca.[19]
    Grave of Hamida al-Barbariyya, the mother of Imam Musa al-Kazim.
    Grave of Amina bint Wahb, Muhammad’s mother, bulldozed and set alight in 1998.
    Graves of Banu Hashim in Mecca.[19]
    Tombs of Hamza and other casualties of the Battle of Uhud were demolished at Mount Uhud.[19]
    Tomb of Eve in Jeddah,[19] sealed with concrete in 1975.
    Grave of the father of Muhammad, in Medina.[19]

    Historical religious sites[edit]
    The house of Mawlid where Muhammad is believed to have been born in 570. Originally turned into a library, it now lies under a rundown building which was built 70 years ago as a compromise after Wahhabi clerics called for it to be torn down.[20]
    The house of Khadija, Muhammad’s first wife. Muslims believe he received some of the first revelations there. It was also where his children Fatimah and Qasim were born. After it was rediscovered during the Haram extensions in 1989, it was covered over and it was made into a library.
    A Hilton hotel stands on the site of the house of Islam’s first caliph, Abu Bakr.[21]
    House of Muhammed in Medina, where he lived after the migration from Mecca.[19]
    Dar e Arqam, the first Islamic school where Muhammad taught.[20] It now lies under the extension of the Masjid Alharam of Mecca.
    Qubbat’ al-Thanaya, the burial site of Muhammed's incisor that was broken in the Battle of Uhud.[13]
    Mashrubat Umm Ibrahim, built to mark the location of the house where Muhammad’s son, Ibrahim, was born to Mariah.
    Dome which served as a canopy over the Well of Zamzam.[19]
    Bayt al-Ahzan of Sayyida Fatima, in Medina.[19]
    House of Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq, in Medina.[19]
    Mahhalla complex of Banu Hashim, in Mecca.[19]
    House of Ali where Hasan and Husayn were born.[19]

    إطلب العلم ولو في الصين

    Es sitzt keine Krone so fest und so hoch,
    Der mutige Springer erreicht sie doch.

    I don't give a fuck about your war, or your President.
  • what we really know about early Islamic History ?
     Reply #56 - May 10, 2015, 04:32 PM

    Looking at this, the tombs almost reads like a who's who list of personages that critical scholarship screams "bullshit!" on. I imagine alot of the "qubuur aS-Su7aaba" ("tombs of the companions (of the prophet)") were actually built long after their supposed deaths.

    إطلب العلم ولو في الصين

    Es sitzt keine Krone so fest und so hoch,
    Der mutige Springer erreicht sie doch.

    I don't give a fuck about your war, or your President.
  • what we really know about early Islamic History ?
     Reply #57 - May 10, 2015, 04:43 PM

    I'm open to the arguments - I don't really have a set view on most of this - but is there actually any evidence for the haj having pre-Islamic origins? That is evidence outside the later Islamic traditions. Absence of evidence wouldn't necessarily mean the haj didn't exist in an earlier form, more that its existence would be uncertain.

    Edit: cross posted with countjulian


    Sources for the History of Pre-Islamic Religion

    https://serdargunes.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/neuwirth-quran-in-context.pdf

    you may have a look at this presentation, it seems they had churches everywhere in Arabia.

    Arabia in Late Antiquity: An Outline of the
    Cultural Situation in the Peninsula at the Time
    of Muhammad *
  • what we really know about early Islamic History ?
     Reply #58 - May 10, 2015, 04:43 PM


    ok, so how do you explain the haj which is an Arab pre Islamic traditions,  the reference to polytheism, which we have a good archaeological reference to it in Arabia, the non biblical prophet like Salah.

    for me i find it much easier to assume a christian-Jewish, hanif monotheist cult  presence in Hijaz than to imagine the text emerged outside of Arabia.


    There isn't any evidence that the Hajj was a pre-Islamic tradition.  There isn't even any pre-Islamic evidence of Mecca, nor of the Quraysh.   Btw, even the name "Hajj" just means pilgrimage, it's a cognate with other Semitic words.  It's not the name of a *specific* pilgrimage.

    Same with Saleh, which just means 'the pious,' and seems to be an epithet that has become treated like another generic prophet.

    For polytheism, you should read Hawting's book on that subject.  The Qur'anic polytheists are anachronistic, as are their stories in Islamic tradition.  They are a mix of polemic against orthodox Christians and anachronism.  One of the most remarkable features of Islamic tradition is its inability to present a coherent picture of the supposed pre-Islamic polytheistic Mecca.

    It is clear that the Qur'an originated in Arabia, or at least amongst an Arabophone populace, but the question is *which* Arabia(s).  As Hoyland points out, Arabia was not just the Hijaz!  If you ask me, it looks quite like the original texts emerged in the former Nabatean region (which, of course, is where the Qur'anic script itself came from, a derivative of Nabatean Aramaic script), likely in caseless Northern Arabic dialect, and at a secondary stage were "Hijazified."  The one use by the Qur'an of the name Yathrib, in Surah 33, is probably the very last layer of text in the Qur'an; it's no accident that Surah 33 also mentions the only contemporary name in the entire Qur'an besides Muhammad (i.e. Zayd), and contains one of the two clear uses of MHMD as the name for the Prophet.

    Btw, I don't believe the Saudis are purposefully hiding anything at Mecca, by preventing archaeological digs, I think there is actually nothing there to hide.  It was probably almost uninhabited before it became a Zubayrid defensive position.
  • what we really know about early Islamic History ?
     Reply #59 - May 10, 2015, 04:47 PM

    Jesus Christ... How is this even possible?

    Are we going to just stand here and look at them while they rewrite the history to fit their religion?

    Is there anything left? Where do the rubbles go?

    It's very sad really. There have been a few threads on this:

    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=22218.0

    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=17949.0



  • Previous page 1 23 4 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »