Language, Identity, Culture and Old Civilizations are not conjured away!

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), Feb 9, 2018 at 10:49

Gato you wrote:

>Of course I know about Qeryana and its meaning as "lectionary". What you describe as "Non Trinitarian Syro-Arabic Christianity" I think it is the same that what I decribe as a "Judeo-Christian sect".

I would slightly correct it as: Judeo-Christian Milieu After all Islam is about polemics and it is the outcome of these polemics. Where did these "disputations" take place? This we know: al-Sham and Mesopotamia What was the original language of that Qeryana? The initial script most likely was Garshouni (Arabic or mix of Arabic and Syriac written by using Syriac alphabet) and when it was Arabized the link to Syriac was lost. Case in point: Puin believes that the word Qaf is Surat Qaf is a misreading of Syriac Sadhe and the words al-Ahqaf is Surat al-Ahqaf is a misreading of the Garshouni 'Amaq and these are only two examples Check also the word Gad in Q72:3 where it says

وانه تعلى جد ربنا مااتخذ صحبة ولاولد

Luxenberg believes, and he makes lots of sense that the word Gad is really Syriac Khad or one!

There are many other examples

> Yet I surmise that this sect has emerged from a Judaic sect(probably Samaritan) converted to Christianity, probably ofter the crushing of the Samaritan rebellion (Wikipedia - "Under a charismatic, messianic figure named Julianus ben Sabar (or ben Sahir), the Samaritans launched a war to create their own independent state in 529. With the help of the Ghassanids, Emperor Justinian I crushed the revolt; tens of thousands of Samaritans died or were enslaved.") Some of Samaritans may have converted in order to avoid persecutions, but they probably retained some of their previous customs(the prohibition of pork, the idea of local, non-Jerusalem centered temple, animal sacrifices etc.). So that the initial Qur'an can indeed be a lectionary of a christianized Samaritan sect. Obviously, almost all religious groups in the Middle East before Islam ere using Aramaic(various dialects) as their sacral language, whether they were Christians, Rabbinic Jews, Samaritans or Mandaeans(Sabians?),

This we don't know

>however the "Qeryana" was conceived not in Aramaic but in Aramaized Arabic, in order to serve as an instruction to ignorant(ummi, Hanpe) Arabs. And certainly if the sect of "Qeryana" was indeed of Samaritan origin, it would be easy explain their bitter hatred against Monophysite Trinitarian Christians since Ghassanids after all put down their revolt.

Again I cannot venture beyond: May be We just don't know

>Apparently there are very little materials("true" aHadith etc.) about Muhammed during the so called "Mekkan" period,

True. Lammens believed al-Waqidi's al-Maghazi is more trustworthy than Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah because al-Waqidi wrote about the so called more known Medina period and not the unknown Mecca period

>I think even Muslim apologists had to recognize that. I think that maybe the fact that he was married to the woman named Khadija could be real fact since she was 15 year his elder and this was rather unusual for these times. And he probably had the cousin Ali and the daughter Fatima. But everything else is very vague.

The Sira as per Wansbrough is really no more than pious fiction It is unhistorical

>al-Ahadith? they can help us, as per Ignaz Goldziher to tell us about what really happened in the 3rd century of Islam otherwise they are all made up nonsense

I believe that the idea of using Isnads was adopted by al-Mufasereen because there was so much bogus material that they had to sort out and it was the way out of this mess However, it is all bogus!

>However if there are little materials about the "Mekkan" period and Mekka itself is very uncertain,

True Read Tafsir Q10:16 and the tafsir of the word عمرا or 'Umr which is a very important word in sorting out the age of Muhammad in 610CE or 613CE when he started to receive al-Mab'ath (revelations)

BTW it is also strange that the word is written as عمرا instead of the proper Arabic عمر

>I think it is impossible to say that about Madina and I think that Muhammed indeed came there with a group of his followers as emigrants and refugees(muhagiruun, mhaggraye).References about people being "driven out from their homes" are too numerous to be simply dismissed as later accretions.

Well the Syriac word or ܡܗܓܪܝܐ Mhgraye also ܡܗܓܪܐ really means those that belong to Hagar (Arabs Muslims?)! Notice that in Arabic this verbal noun is called Masdr Mimi or Masdr with an M prefix and it is very common in Syriac not in Arabic

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%DC%A1%DC%97%DC%93%DC%AA%DC%90

And no it does not mean al-Muhajeroon or المهاجرون and yes I realize that the invading Arabs were called المهاجرون (those that emigrated)

>But where from have they immigrated to Madina? It is not clear but probable from somewhere in Greater Syria. Historical materials about Madina are more plentiful yet it is doubtful that it would possible to ever reconstruct the exact course of event during the Madina period.

Oh for sure the word المهاجرون describing the Muslim invaders is very odd but could it be wrong Arabization of the Syriac Mhgraye?

>Still another point - some historians think that the conflict of Muhammed with Jews (the excision of Banu Qurayza etc.) happened later, somewhere in 636-640 and that Jews were temporary allies of Muslims up to that time.

Crone believed that the Jews were allies of Muhammad early on I don't believe it. This is where things went wrong in her great book Hagarism.

>Apparently after the conquest of Jerusalem Jews wanted to construct their temple and establish their power over the Palestine and this was not in the plans of the emerging Muslim community.

There was no Islam before the Abbasids revolution in 750CE

>Concerning Adulis, it is probable that it was an important commercial center during 610-632 but 750 and later when the most of Islamic writings were written it has already lost its importance, hence Muslims failed to mention it.

Or the story of Muslims going to Ethiopia is really the story of Nestorians trying to spread their faith in Ethiopia and in Islamic historical tradition they become Muslims and not Nestorians and Adulis is lost because a liar usually does not get his story straight

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".