A NEW Paleo-Arabic Inscription by a COMPANION of Muhammad? | Ahmad Al-Jallad and Hythem Sidky
2024 ж. 13 Мам.
22 843 Рет қаралды
In this video I chat with Dr. Ahmad Al-Jallad and Dr. Hythem Sidky about a recently discovered Paleo-Arabic Inscription found in Taif, which may be from a companion of Muhammad. They have recently released a paper in which they publish their findings and make some observations about the nature of the inscription, its date, and whether or not it could be authored by a companion of Muhammad.
You can find their paper here: “A Paleo-Arabic Inscription of a Companion of Muhammad?” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 83 (2024), 1-14.
www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi...
Watching from Taif, Saudi Arabia.
Really?
Rock carving or it didn't happen :)
Do you feel proud as i do being a saudi listening to this ?
Fascinating. Thanks, Dr. Reynolds! You’re never afraid to present the facts as they are. It’s a benefit to us all!
Is clear most people who comment don’t actually watch these videos and at the very least don’t retain or comprehend most of it because the questions they ask demonstrates they haven’t watched and are incapable of making any reasonable conclusions based on the information in the videos especially if you have any decent context to put it in.
I am a former apostate, and Alhamdulillah Allah S.W.T showed me the right path, and I converted to Islam. I have been doing great Dawah in many years with a great result. Allah S.W.T. helps me and my fellow Muslims in my mission. 🙏🙏🙏❤️❤️❤️
Barakallah feekum, brother , may God bless you in your mission.
@xyz-rk7ru thanks, brother. Please help me if you can by spreading the message inshallah. 🙏
@@xyz-rk7ru thanks 😊 🙏.
I am an apostate and so proud of leaving this filthy cult
@TingTong2568 Why did you leave? I left because I had little knowledge.
the passion you three have for these new discoveries really shines through here
This is an absolutely fascinating talk!
Thank you Professor Reynolds to you and to your guests and congratulations on their new findings. The topic of paleo-Arabic or pre-Islamic script and how it evolved to the later of versions of Arabic is very interesting and would love to learn more about it.
I wish you had asked Ahmad at the end whether he inspected the site of Souk Okaz and found anything interesting there. Brilliant interview as always
Thank you professor Reynolds! Nice to watch you again!
Awesome work and watching this from Australia
Very interesting discussion. Thank you!
Thank you all for this amazing discovery and for all your hard work.
Thank you for this great channel it's so interesting getting up-to-date scholarship like this, and both of these speakers are so articulate - I hope we see them again!
Beautiful episode
Amazing show
This is such an exciting discovery. The content on this channel is so good.
41:49 Al Jallad should compile all these inscriptions, anchored with the visual evidence (photograph) and his commentary. This would be a very interesting book/compilation.
I love your content
Everyone is smiling and happy. I love a world full of truth and righteousness.
as someone who's always bored after 3min of any video !! Mashaallah, this got me wired till the End! fascinating...
Thank you all! What a pleasant way to end my week and enjoy a Friday night with this channel. I had just downloaded and read this paper this morning. Many thanks.
what is the summary?
Great piece of work..I read the paper some days before...however full paper is not available in the link provided by Dr Jallad in academia.
😊 Gabriel Said Reynolds in his The Quran in it's Historical Context includes two articles on the Syriac connection but the name Ishoyahb III does not appear?
ahmad is such a cool guy
This is interesting stuff
Exciting discovery! I only wish I have enough money to spare to buy the research paper itself. 😅
Use sci-hub
profit mu ham mad was a jew, my friend Narrated AbuNamlah al-Ansari: When he was sitting with the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and a Jew was also with him, a funeral passed by him. He (the Jew) asked (Him): Muhammad, does this funeral speak? The Prophet (ﷺ) said: Allah has more knowledge. The Jew said: It speaks. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: Whatever the people of the Book tell you, do not verify them, nor falsify them, but say: We believe in Allah and His Apostle. If it is false, do not confirm it, and if it is right, do not falsify it. The Prophet (ﷺ) used to copy the people of the Scriptures in matters in which there was no order from Allah. what did mu ham mad learned from jews!!! al lah said these is my seal of a false profit.
Maybe you lack comprehension skills, but the hadith you quoted refutes the claim you've made
@@masterblaster4784 profit mu ham mad was a jew, my friend Narrated AbuNamlah al-Ansari: When he was sitting with the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and a Jew was also with him, a funeral passed by him. He (the Jew) asked (Him): Muhammad, does this funeral speak? The Prophet (ﷺ) said: Allah has more knowledge. The Jew said: It speaks. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: Whatever the people of the Book tell you, do not verify them, nor falsify them, but say: We believe in Allah and His Apostle. If it is false, do not confirm it, and if it is right, do not falsify it. The Prophet (ﷺ) used to copy the people of the Scriptures in matters in which there was no order from Allah. what did mu ham mad learned from jews!!! al lah said these is my seal of a false profit.
@@seeki3315Being a Jew is a huge claim, but lacks any logical substantiation.
This is amazing! Thank you so much for doing this. I love listening to Ahmad al Jallad speak and also Hythem Sidky. It is interesting how many people are still talking about Petra being the site of Mecca, including Jay Smith.
Hi Momo, this is Ceasar. So doesn't it seem like there is some truth to Islamic history and Seerah?
@@baybars3138.... Obviously? Always has been
@@arta.xshaca Momo runs a channel where they think Islamic history is not true, so that's why I asked.
@@baybars3138oh, thx
@@baybars3138 I think this works indicates that Mecca was in the Hijaaz and there is some truth to the traditional Islamic narrative. However, I think there are also many holes too as there seems to be no polytheism left by the time of Mohammad. Haji Bhai is more convinced of the Dan Gibson narrative. This is why we have to keep asking what the current academic research is saying
Beautiful work and great impressive work I love it specially Dr Ahamed jalad.
This is fascinating. What do you think triggered this pre- Muhammad uniformity? Why/ how did it develop over the century pre the Prophet? is there any speculation?
You guys should so one on the archeology of Mecca next, I hear the history is profound.
The oldest archaeology in and around Mecca is Ottoman (12th Century CE). Fake history is hardly profound!
@@gavinjames1145 How could that be? Isn't Mecca one of the oldest cities in the world? Where did "The Prophet" come from then? Wasn't Islam recorded in the full view of history?
@@gavinjames1145 😂😂😂 ottoman ruled Mecca only in the 16th century. This is a channel about scietific historic facts, go find another hobby other than history
@@user-dm6oq6nh9y According to Islamic landmarks (online): "The Ajyad Fortress (Arabic: قلعة أجياد) [built in 1777] was an Ottoman era castle which stood on a hill overlooking Masjid al-Haram [in Mecca]." So, I was too generous with my dates: there is even *less* history in Mecca!
@@JohnVander70 The earliest non-Islamic record of Mecca is from 741 CE. ALL places of significance in Mecca have been destroyed and built upon (including the Kaaba). There isn't any archaeology worth noting that dates from before the Ottoman period (they built a fort overlooking Mecca). The fact that any and all places of interest in Mecca have been destroyed in the process of building skyscrapers, no-one could possibly verify anything now.
I wld hv liked to hv heard more abt the 2nd gen inscription - which sounds like a slam dunk.
Why there is no such inscriptions in Mecca? Taif was a trade route station. So there can be such inscription in taif
Ta'if i an Oasis, it has Agriculture while Mecca has just a waterhole on a rocky Plateau. A Caravan would need 2 days from Ta'if to Mecca, insufficent to supply a Settlement, let alone a center of trade and culture.
We didn’t publish/find any, it’s not “there is no such inscription in Mecca”
The oldest inscriptions around Mecca are Ge'ez, not Arabic.
Al Jallad is heading to the disco when this is done
In the paper mentioned here, there is an earlier inscription mentioned which seems to be reported by Qasas. There seems to be no publication or repository mentioned that documents it. Does anyone know how to get more information about this earlier inscription?
This is the best discussions i have seen so far concerning pre-Islamic inscriptions. Some big jumps and assumptions are being made here. There is still not a convincing argument for saying that Syriac does not heavily influence Arabic writing and scripts. It is not natural for languages to make these quantum jumps unless a powerful empire is driving the process. So, process to Arabic script develop would have been a lot slower and diverse in the 5th century until the rise of the Arab empires that would be the case
What about inscription of Zuhair?
IF ARABIC HAS BEEN FULLY DEVELOPED BY THE TIME THE QURAN WAS REVEALED, why must the inscription be written by a companion of the prophet or someone linked to him in PALEO-ARABIC?
Rahman was in Ugaritic and Aramaic texts-Id be surprised if it wasn’t on Paleoarabic
Isn't this term attested somewhere in Palmyra?
Half the fun of the videos on this channel is reading the ridiculous comment section.
I need some extra popcorn just for that
Why? Because the comments emphasize the veracity of the Koran, which seem to bother you. You should focus on the substance of the video, not on the comments. Stay safe and good.
@@harmiel-brarero7029 The Quran saying some things true would bear no meaning to me as an atheist who likes reading about how religions start and evolve. Anyone who seems to think that just because a religious text is right about many things means that the divine/supersitition is true has petra in their head
@@AS-lm2yv That just means you don't think with your head clearly, you can't disprove God atheist, your belief itself will take more of a leap of faith than believing in God, but anyway continue indulging in this worldly life, We will see soon what is the truth
@@tahmidmahbub9770 yeah we will. ill live my life enjoyable and you wont and we will both be rotting in the ground in 50 years.
Where is the pics of this inscription? The most famous inscription is the one mentioning the death of Umar Ibn Alkhatab, with an Islamic date. Available to see on islamic awareness.
Language; When you look at the actual linguistics, you'll find that many were puzzled by the opposite, that is, how the other "semetic" (why in quotes will be revealed later) languages were more "evolved" than Arabic, while Arabic had archaic features, not only archaic compared to bibilical Hebrew, Ethiopic, "Aramaic" contemporary "semetic" languages, but even archaic compared to languages from ancient antiquity; Ugaritic, Akkadain. What is meant here by Archaic is not what most readers think, it is Archaic not in the sense that it is simple, but rather that it is complex (think Latin to pig Latin or Italian or Old English, which had genders and case endings to modern English), not only grammatically, but also phonetically; All the so called semitic languages are supposed to have evolved from protosemetic, the Alphabet for protosemitic is that of the so called Ancient South Arabian (which interestingly corresponds with the traditional Arabic origins account) and has 28 Phonemes. Arabic has 28 phonemes. Hebrew has 22, same as Aramaic, and other "semitic" languages. Now pause for a second and think about it, how come Arabic, a language that is supposed to have come so late has the same number of letters as a language that supposedly predates it by over a millennium (Musnad script ~1300 BCE). Not only is the glossary of phonemes more diverse than any other semitic language, but the grammar is more complex, containing more cases and retains what's linguists noted for its antiquity, broken plurals. Indeed, a linguist has once noted that if one were to take everything we know about languages and how they develop, Arabic is older than Akkadian (~2500 BCE). |Classical Arabic | 28 consonants, 29 with Hamza and 6 vowels; some consonants are emphatic or pharyngealized; some vowels are marked with diacritics | Complex system of word formation based on roots and patterns; roots are sequences of consonants that carry the basic meaning of a word; patterns are sequences of vowels and affixes that modify the meaning and function of a word | Flexible word order, but VSO is most common; SVO is also possible; subject and object are marked by case endings (-u for nominative, -a for accusative, -i for genitive); verb agrees with subject in person, number, and gender; verb has different forms for different moods and aspects | | Akkadian | 22 consonants and 3 vowels; some consonants are glottalized or palatalized; vowels are not marked | Similar system, but with different roots and patterns; some roots have more than three consonants; some patterns have infixes or reduplication | Fixed word order of SVO; subject and object are not marked by case endings, but by prepositions or word order; verb agrees with subject in person, number, and gender; verb has different forms for different tenses and aspects | | Aramaic | 22 consonants and 3 vowels (later variants have more); no emphatic or pharyngealized consonants (except in some dialects); vowels are not marked (except in later variants such as Syriac) | Simple system of word formation based on prefixes and suffixes; some roots or patterns exist, but are less productive than in Arabic or Akkadian | Arabic is the only corollary to proto-semitic, infact the whole semitic classification is nonsensical for anyone with a somewhat functioning mass between their ears. hebrew, aramaic, rest of madeup dialect continua only have 22 letters of the 29 protosemitic letters Arabic has all 29. The difference betweeen Arabic and the other creoles and Pidgin is the same as that between Latin and pig latin or italian. Arabic is written in an alphabetic script that consists of 28 consonants and three long vowels. For example: قرأ زيد كتابا qaraʾa zayd-un kitāb-an Zayd read a book This sentence is composed of three words: qaraʾa (he read), zayd-un (Zayd), and kitāb-an (a book). The word order is verb-subject-object, which is different from English but similar to Proto-Semitic and Akkadian. The word zayd-un has a suffix -un that indicates the nominative case, which is equivalent to "the" in English or "-u" in Akkadian. The word kitāb-an has a suffix -an that indicates the accusative case, which is equivalent to "a" in English or "-a" in Akkadian. Proto-Semitic is the reconstructed ancestor of all Semitic languages. It is not written in any script, but linguists use a system of symbols to represent its sounds. For example: ʔanāku bēlīya ʔašū I am his lord This sentence is composed of three words: ʔanāku (I), bēlīya (my lord), and ʔašū (he). The word order is subject-object-verb, which is different from English but similar to Arabic and Akkadian. The word bēlīya has a suffix 'ya' that indicates possession, which is equivalent to "my" in English or "-ī" in Arabic. The word ʔašū has a prefix ʔa- that indicates the third person singular masculine pronoun, which is equivalent to "he" in English or "huwa" in Arabic. I'll compare Arabic with Proto-Semitic and show how Arabic preserves features that are lost or changed in other Semitic languages. Let's start with a simple sentence: ## The house is big Arabic: البيتُ كبيرٌ al-bayt-u kabīr-un Proto-Semitic: *ʔal-bayt-u kabīr-u Hebrew: הבית גדול ha-bayit gadol Akkadian: bītum rabûm Amharic: ቤቱ ገደሉ betu gedelu As can be seen, Arabic and Proto-Semitic have the same word order (noun-adjective), the same definite article (al-), and the same case endings (-u for nominative). Hebrew and Akkadian have lost the case endings and changed the definite article (ha- and -um respectively). Amharic has changed the word order (adjective-noun) and the definite article (u-). But Arabic is not only similar to Proto-Semitic, it is also pre-Semitic, meaning that it is the original form of Semitic before it split into different branches. This is because Arabic preserves many features that are not found in any other Semitic language, but are found in other Afro-Asiatic languages, such as Egyptian and Berber. These features include: - The definite article al-, which is derived from the demonstrative pronoun *ʔal- 'that'. This article is unique to Arabic among Semitic languages, but it is similar to the article n- in Berber and the article p-, t-, n- in Egyptian. - The dual number for nouns and verbs, which is marked by the suffix -ān or -ayn. This number is rare in other Semitic languages, but it is common in other Afro-Asiatic languages, such as Egyptian and Berber. - The imperfective prefix t- for verbs, which indicates the second person singular feminine or third person plural feminine. This prefix is unique to Arabic among Semitic languages, but it is similar to the prefix t- in Berber and Egyptian. - The passive voice for verbs, which is marked by the infix t between the first and second root consonants. This voice is unique to Arabic among Semitic languages, but it is similar to the passive voice in Egyptian and Berber. Finally, a more complex sentence: The letter was written with a pen. Arabic: كُتِبَتِ الرِّسَالَةُ بِالقَلَمِ kutiba-t al-risāla-t-u bi-l-qalam-i Proto-Semitic: *kutiba-t ʔal-risāla-t-u bi-l-qalam-i Hebrew: המכתב נכתב בעט ha-michtav niktav ba-et Akkadian: šipram šapāru bēlum Egyptian: sḏm.n.f p-ẖry m rnp.t Berber: tturra-t tibratin s uccen Here, Arabic and Proto-Semitic have the same word order (verb-subject-object), the same passive voice marker (-t-), the same definite article (al-), and the same preposition (bi-). Hebrew has changed the word order (subject-verb-object), lost the passive voice marker, changed the definite article (ha-) and the preposition (ba-). Akkadian has changed the word order (object-subject-verb), lost the passive voice marker, changed the definite article (-um) and the preposition (bēlum). Now how is it that the Qur'an came thousands of years in a language that is lexically, syntactically, phonemically, and semantically older than the oldest recorded writing. God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger. God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
in the paper, by the authors themselves
@@xanithkl Is there an image you can share ?
Send this to Jay Smith lol
Jay Smith has already chosen the path of resistance & self-deception. There is not much you say to convince him out of his own lies. Before the manuscripts, he claimed “The Qur’an was centuries after Muhammad” and when confronted with the dating evidence, he says “The Qur’an must have been written before the Prophet”. He is a master of fallacy, who wiggles himself out of any truth to keep his career and narrative intact.
It sounds like Arabic Monotheism predates Muhammad. He brought nothing new but added to what was already circulating.
@@celestialknight2339 Yea, it's beyond incredible
You will find Jay Smith's confessions that he lies. Therefore, it is foolish to follow liars.
@@user-kj8yl6sn2z Guys I know Jay Smith is a deluded and foolish liar. I'm saying to send this for him so he can (hopefully) stop spreading nonsense
@36:00 ... the other side I've heard for him being called "Al-Rahib" is that he was from Banu Rahb of the Aws tribe. Was nit able to confirm though. The interesting thing though is Abu Sufyan of Mecca also had a son called Hanzala ... so what does that say to assuming the name is more Yathrib?
Amidst the excitement surrounding these discoveries lies the text of the Qur’an. However, while listening to Al Jallad, I’ve yet to discern how these primitive inscriptions can illuminate the genesis of the Qur’an. Though Al Jallad finds enthusiasm in these short utterances, he offers little insight into what they reveal about the Qur’an’s origins, its highly developed style, and sophisticated prose.
its because you havent been listening well, in another video aljallad talks about how in nabatean and safaitic inscrpitions many gods were appealed to but interestingly in the century preceding islam only 3 gods were mentionned which are lat uzza and manat, which are the gods that we find in the quran, also from these same inscriptions we can conclude that pagans didnt belive in the afterlife which again confirm what quran said about them
@@multechpro7151 You seem to have overlooked the essence of my comment. The uncovering of manāt, lāt, and ʿuzzā does not elucidate the development of the intricately sophisticated prose found in the Qur’an. While Al Jallad finds fervor in the discovery of short, primitive utterances like ‘باسمك ربنا,’ he neglects to bridge the gap between this rudimentary stage and the elevated style of the Qur’an. There remains a missing link, particularly for those acquainted with the Arabic language.
@@jawhardawood7667 i get what you mean and im here for the same reason btw, so aljallad mentionned in this video or another one that a colleague female friend of his wrote a book about this specific topic, how did the arabic language evolved based on historical findings , so if you re interested you need to go and look up the name of the book
@@jawhardawood7667 Short inscriptions (on rock) can hardly develop language as can a text written on papyrus, parchment or any other easily writable material that cannot survive as easily as rock. Somewhere else al-Jallad (and a few others) argue that the cursive style of the Arabic script (also found on pre-Islamic rock inscriptions) reflect a widespread use of writing in ink on materials such as paper or parchment. This suggests that Arabic was written extensively in the 6th century of the CE before the Qur'an was composed (the tradition of pre-Islamic poetry in Arabic also supports this scenario). So it is likely that texts exhibiting a highly developed style and sophisticated prose existed before the Qur'an which is not to say that the Qur'an didn't innovate and pioneer also.
Can anyone tell me in the last 15 hundred years beliefs of Muslim changed? From 15 hundred years all main beliefs are the same. Some verses transactions may be different. If there were different Quran, islamic main beliefs would not be the same.
There were different versions but the core beliefs (one divinity etc.) remains. Many versions were lost in time, others in fire, others in translation. Christians will still believe in one god, the existence of a guy named Yeshua / Jesus / Jsu etc. even after translations from Arameic Greek and so on. We do not know who really wrote the official version and their type and level of Arabic language. They were probably not from the Quraych tribe, thus variations. There were probably many Arabic languages at the time, variants from region to region, tribe to tribe, and some words / expressions differeng in meaning (same as today in most countries) Same story, different versions.
So why is there Sunni, Shia sufi and all this
An unbiased, factually leaning, interpretation of the paleo evidences found in the Arabian lands. Very enthusiastically discussed and presented. Thank you.
What does it say!!??😅
fascinating. I hope I can read the article.
How do you date the inscription?
Al Uzza, so the inscription is talking about the satanic verses in the Quran?
How do we know the inscription is Islamic?
Forgiveness of sin sounds very Christian to me...
I don't think that the origin of the quran and the origin of Islam are identical. The quran - at least large parts of it - is older than Islam.
Imagine after seeing these highlights, if Devin had been given the win on points😂
Why did they have names like Abd-ul-Uzza when they were mostly monotheistic at this time, and it seems they were only worshiping Allah. Was it just a historical name and didn't reflect the worship of Uzze? A practice in naming after it was abandoned due to Islam?
I think it was a sort of henotheism, perhaps monolatry, that was prominent at that time.
Al-Uzza was worshipped until the conquest of Mecca, indicating that the religion wasn't fully monotheistic but rather henotheistic. Additionally, I believe that ḥunafā’ is an individual intellectual movement rather than a national doctrine. Paganism, I believe, was still prevalent in major settlements. Moreover, one's name may not accurately reflect their personal beliefs but rather those of their parents or caregivers who named them. For instance, the name 'Abd-Al-uzze' is his father name, suggests what’s the grandparents' doctrine rather than the individual's beliefs!
@@ahmeds.9724that’s a historically possible option but not plausible, if I understood your suggestion properly. The followers of Islam would not likely be henotheistic given the strict monotheistic nature of the religion an it being established so early on which leaves little room for much corruption to hnotheism in such a short space of time. So the best explanation for any pagan worship in the time of Mecca (pre conquest) is best explained by the hadith literature; persecution of Muslims by pagan enemies pre conquest. Since they were the prevailing group they had liberty to worship that which they wanted to worship, the Muslims would be free from this.
@@ahmeds.9724you need to give a justification for thinking that the Muslims were henotheistic in this time pre Mecca, it is an outlandish conclusion. Nowhere in the quran hadith or archaeological records do we see the suggestion of Muslims being henotheistic pre Mecca
They weren’t only worshipping Allah, they were henotheists. Allah was their chief God but they had intercessors ie Allat Al Uzza. Islam’s claim is that it restored the worship of the True God of Abraham and the prophets that the pagans had a loose connection to at this point
Dear Sir, it would be much Apriciated if you could add the Title "Prophet" to His Name, i.e.. Prophet Muhammad, just as you would do the same with the name of Jesus, the Christ (Jesus Christ) - Thanks.
He is called Al-Jallad for a reason lol
Aljallad doesnt mean that smart ass
Means 'executioner'? His family came from executioner family? lol.
@@yojan9238 haha that might be true, but I was referring to his name being the subject form of the verb "jalada" "to lash", which is a modern arabic slang for destroying someone in an argument
Is it impossible to read "Hanzala, 'abd 'Amr(u) " (because it is not sure the br/bn is original, and because I cant read Abi, but 'Abd )
Nobody read Abi. The reading ‘abd is important for the datation. The absence of bn/br is irrelevant. This is often absent in Paleo-Arabic inscriptions. The the actual study.
@@brothersgrim07 where does the bn/br miss ? Not here, where the below inscription have it. Why would it not be, more simply, Hanzala, slave of 'Amr ?
@@simonpierre-histoiredislam2074 there is a bin, it was carved secondarily. In Hima you have the same man who sometimes carves two generation name with br and without, just a juxtaposition of two names. Read article. And also ‘bd is not used in such a way. We have rather fatā for such things.
What are the proof of « Mekka » and worst « masjid haram » ????? 😳😳😳
I am just curious for if this Taif inscription is so important and so obvious why wasn’t discovered by the Saudi Heritage archaeologists who are in thousands roaming their landscape?
I don't think we have thousand of archeologist here specially since the politics for not a long time ago on Saudi view very badly this kind of work
sometimes it's not realized that an inscription is actually older than we think
Archeology studies has not been prioritized by Saudi government until recently. I have been in Madinah museum and to be honest it looks miserably. Without Ottoman heritage probably nothing is left and I believe since Wahabi movement started more than a hundred year ago, many manuscripts and inscriptions probably has been destroyed or dissapeared.
@@uripiru 100% agreed
The complete absence of any Quranic verses in rock inscriptions is very problematic for the traditional narrative of Quran's origins.
There are lots of Quranic verses in rock inscriptions. I believe some go back to the first century hijra.
@pheeel17 Oldest inscriptions of Quranic verses are those on Dome of the rock.
Identifying handalah as the compagnon because of abdel uzza is based on an assumption, wich is that there was islam in that region at the time of the inscription ! , and that the inscription goes back to the 6th century and to someone who knows the prophet , who let him write the name of his grand father as it is... Circular thinking falasy there by sidky !
The form of the name (Yahweh) is well-known in the Torah, and there is no need for examples. The name Yahweh may come in the form (Yah). We learned from the Qur’an that Zechariah, peace be upon him, is one of God’s prophets. The name Zechariah is composed of the word (Zechar), meaning (remembrance), and the word (iah), which sounds like (Yah) or (Yahweh). The prophets of God in the Qur’an are Muslims who do not worship anyone other than God and do not use anything associated with anything other than the True God. This means that the (Yah) syllable in Zechariah’s name is related to God (God remembers). The linguistic details of the name Zechariah may be included in the verse [19:2 This is the remembrance of the mercy of your Lord to His servant Zechariah]. We find in the noble verse the word (remembrance), and we also find the word “Lord” in (the mercy of your Lord). So the meaning of (Yah) is (Lord), as is known to the People of the Book. Perhaps it is permissible for us to compare the phrase “remembrance of the mercy of your Lord” with the word “Zechariah,” which may make the meaning of “Yahweh” the “mercy of the Lord” or “the Merciful Lord.” The linguistic origin of the name (Yahweh) may be from a root similar to the Arabic root (awa) related to mercy. In the refinement of the language: It is said: Al-Awah means merciful, and Al-Awah... most merciful and the kind-hearted, and with it the verse was interpreted: [11:75 Truly, Abraham was forbearing, tender-hearted, and ever turning ˹to his Lord˺.]. If our assumption is correct, the meaning of “Yahweh” may be the same as the meaning of “Ar-Rahman” or “Ar-Rahim,” (the Most Compassionate, Most Merciful,). (Yah-Awah). So the literal meaning of the word Yahweh is (Lord have mercy).
44:45 Did i hear correct that "Allah" is 1 of three pegan pre-islamic gods? I thought Allah was a specific name for the Islamic God.
No that’s not what he said.
@@bobbycalifornia7077 Well ..what was the name of the second God al-jallad said? Because it sounds like Allah
@@Yo0264 He said some inscriptions are monotheistic and some are polytheistic/pagan and gave an example. Later he says that Al ilah is the Christian spelling of Allah but they are the same God and same word. So if your question is whether Allah was a pagan God turned into the Abrahamic one - that’s not what he said.
@bobbycalifornia7077 .... my question is what was the second name he said in the pegan polytheism inscription at the above time stamp. That is all, thank you. Made no mention of anything else
Yes, you heard correctly. It's not a name that appears often, but it is attested as one of the pre-Islamic deities. You'll need to fact check this, but I think it's only spelled with one L if I remember correctly
Could this be the verse that was eaten by the goat?
you rely on weak hadith . how can goat eat its own skin
There is this ambiguity about the word “rab” / Lord, in that it seems to signify Allah in the connection of the Mesih. It is not at all obvious and rather obscure - but yes, there is the relationship between the Lord, Master (epitaphs for Jesus) as the one who actively forgives sins, and is BOTH Allah and also the Mesih. This would appear bizarre, but so is the Christian idea that there is only one God, and yet Jesus is God as well as- but not really - but yes …..
You wish
@@MrEbMr when the martyrs have died and go to the paradise - they sit next to their “lord”. That “lord” is later called Allah - BUT- in essence - this is a Christian idea that that followers of Jesus who were persecuted and died for him, will end up sitting next to Jesus in Heaven. So there is definitely some connection- but to establish how strong it is - the term “rab” needs to be analyzed in terms of judgment (Jesus judging the “sheep” from the “goat” or between the believers and unbelievers) and in terms of granting forgiveness (Jesus is the vehicle of forgiveness and redemption for Christians). In other words - we would need to count and analyze the context of the verses in which “lord” acts as a judge and the forgiver of sins, in contrast to other instances of the term “Allah” - in circumstances prior to Jesus’s life (myths of creation and divine punishment) The more the term “rab” would be used in the context of Abraham and Moses - the less valid the point here. The more the term “rab” is used in the reference to the future judgment or the forgiveness- the more valid.
@@MBiernat0711 can you send me a reference to where it says martyrs will sit next to their lord, im trying to find it.
@@MrEbMr yes let me find it unfortunately i didn’t take notes - but brb
@@MrEbMr ok so first to provide context - the idea of martyrs joining their lord in heaven comes from revelations 6 (opening of the 5th seal) where the martyrs who died for sharing the testimony of God and Jesus. So curiously - in revelation itself- God and lord are treated as the same AND distinct from each other already- and the very same thought line will be maintained in Sura 3:169-170 - the martyrs are “alive with / next to their lord”. So the “lord” in the context of the apocalypse- is Jesus. Because the early Islam was an apocalyptic movement- it took from the apocalyptic thought and from The 7th century Christianity which was at war with each other and others
The basmallah inscription from 6th century is so significant. As Muslims, I feel we don’t pay homage to more “objective” history around the Quran and its development. The Prophet (pbuh) was illiterate but he was not ignorant and I believe he would have had an extraordinary memory and gift of high spoken Arabic. For me, I always hope that the monotheistic faith and its scholars work more closely together to see the continuation of the divine message to paint a more holistic picture. Instead, we have a rise in malicious apologetics where people are trying to prove each other wrong and gain some kind of superior status. How proud and irreligious is that?
"...and gift of high spoken Arabic." in the 7th century arabic was stil lin development. All languages evolve over time, this is explained in the video wich you seem not to understand. So a pre-fabricated text in a language that people will speak sometimes in the future doesn't make sense. But some of the meanings are lost and others are disputed, exactly as it happened to other ancient texts.
What is "high spoken Arabic"?? Also, I think he indeed was well-versed in literature (verses!). He probably had some great religious, social and personal motives for creating a whole new religion from a medley of pre-existing Abrahamic and old Arabian "pagan" ones. There is a strong emphasis on monotheism, the concept of propitiation through worship for unending reward and avoiding eternal damnation, and proper social functioning and union/family attitudes. There is also a sense of purpose for mankind as a whole, but also not-so-subtle things to promote Arabian unity and success. Finally, some may suppose an endeavor for conquering Palestine besides the obvious message of another method of propitiation through spreading the word of God.
@@slippingsnake you are just proving my point with the whole apologetics. I’ve watched the video and I’ve been studying Arabic for a decade. My point was aimed at orthodoxy. I don’t have any truck with the Quran being studied as an historical text which would no doubt highlight its development in the context of broader Judaea-Christian-Islamic historical development. All three have an immense amount to learn from each other.
@@arta.xshaca yes, I believe this. The question I think then becomes a moral one when you go into the domain of motives. Was he power mad or was he truly a prophet or enlightened individual who brought expanded monotheistic thinking in Arabia. By hight spoken Arabic, history does show us that the poets and literati of the time were impressed by the language of the Quran even though they refused its message.
You are right about the scholars but wrong about the prophet he wasn’t illiterate this was made up by later Muslims in order to claim there was a miracle because the prophet didn’t claim performing miracles
A fascinating discussion! @37:23 is interesting to note that Al Jallad seems to be adopting Fred M. Donner’s view that “Muslims” may not be the right term to use for the first generation Muslims! Donner’s theory in this regard is flimsy and lacks substantial evidence.
That is not what he’s saying. He is just being neutral regarding all of the different opinions. He used the term “Muslim”.
If you listen carefully, he is casting doubt over the “correctness” of the term for that era.
@@jawhardawood7667 no he is saying scholars question the correctness of the term. It isn’t a consensus and so he is remaining neutral.
@@brothersgrim07 Donner has clearly hit on something that mst be discussed, no? It is supported by much of the evidence. But we are still learning as this shows.
@@dodgysmum8340Do you know what the evidence is? Have you read Donner at all?
Nope, it was stages
As for the handala , there are many compagnons and non compagnons with the name handala's ibn amru/ibn abi amir : Handala ibn amru al aslami Handala ibn amru ibn handala Handala ibn amru al rizqi Handala ibn qeis ibn amru al rizqi (not a compagnon but saw many compagnons and transmited hadiths from them) Handala ibn rabi'a ibn saifi that was known as ibn amru because he descended from amru , know as the writer because he wrote somthing for the prophet as they say Handala al ghassil , who is name is handala ibn abi a'amir , a compagnon , his grand father amru was a cristian monk (rahib) Handala ibn qays ibn amru : a compagnon also ! Handala ibn abi amir ibn sayfi : the one that the researchers point to. So the name was very commun , amru or abu amir are also very commun names , and those who the hadith reporters have knows are only few of many handala's ibn amru or ibn abi amir that were not muslims maybe and maybe never heard of islam in arabia at the time of the inscription
Man you’re going crazy. Take it easy. First the responsibly dealt with the text and talked in terms of probability; these guys are not apologists. Second the name is not hanzala ibn amru. It’s the relatively rare name ‘abd-‘amru. The inscriptions are definitely pre Islamic paleographic terms. Read the article!
Difficult to imagine that they used Abdel 3izza after Islam? Really? Well we still have Abdel 3aziz until this day. Lol
Hey GUYS - anyone and everyone!!! Tell me am I missing something from this video? As far as I can tell- the inscriptions tell us that there was monotheism in Taif, distinct from Yemeni monotheism - that was as early as the 5th century- and that the names on the inscription later on appeared in the Hadith. None of this means that the people who scribed their names on the stones are “companion of the Prophet” - rather - in most probability- they were names of hijazi monotheists who might have lived as early as in the 5th century- whose names later were reflected in the Hadith as the sahaba - with many elaborate stories about them finalized around the 9th century but those stories were just a distant memory of important people from Taif, not that they really were the companions of Muhammad - again - is there something more here that I’m not seeing ? Please - is there something more specific about those inscriptions? I have not read the article, I admit. Just listened to the video.
Overthinking
@@arta.xshaca the inscription is factual. It exist. It is written in stone - LITERALLY. But I can not see “prophet Muhammad” or his companions there - is that overthinking? …. We can not make this jump backwards, from Hadith to early Taif stone inscriptions. This is very irresponsible for any scholar to make such a jump - because it gives false hopes to those who want to “prove” that the Muhammad as we know from Hadith - was an actual person and not a later innovation.
@@MBiernat0711there are plenty of proofs for his existence, no serious historians question it. Just the image of him. There are attestations to him within 50 years of his death by non Muslims (Christians)). I can list some sources out if you’re interested? Given the fact that we’re ignoring the use of the most historically reliable statements in the world (and by no means is this an exaggeration), the hadith, it makes sense that identifying him becomes more difficult. Why we ignore it is for illegitimate reasons bc The hadith are the best candidate to be using to identify history The hadith have the chain of narrators documented, each narrator’s biography documented, the narrator’s reliability documented, the narration itself, and thousands of scholars (muhadith) dedicated to identify false hadith narrations by assessing these aforementioned documentations. No other historical statement (western or Arab) contains this level of scrupulousness over the authenticity of it. It’s not just that no document has it that’s the problem, the problem is the fact that historical statements *need* this in order to substantiate the belief that the narration is authentically attributed to whoever it’s attributed to so if it lacks this then you have reasonable grounds to doubt it. To put simply, if you doubt hadith despite the levels of checks and balances put in place mentioned above, then consistency demands that historians doubt all attributions in the past to any human being who’s ever existed given that they don’t have any chains of transmission for the Information, they have no reliability of the writers documented because the writers don’t usually identify themselves and if they did there’d be no way to cross reference it. The conclusion being to use the hadith literature to understand the historical Muhammad
💯% correct.
People usually are prone to write inscriptions on walls, rocks, trees, and caves while away from their homes. Tourists and wonderers oftens do that and we witness sit when we see graffiti of their names on important or historical sites. Even Kings used to use stones to write proclamation of their name and authority on rocks.
Could it be later fabrication?
"You can't miss it if you look up"... And yet nobody saw it's importance for 1400 years? Actually I wrote it some years ago 😇
Sorry .. 😂😂😂
Conclusions; *Plausibility of Quran being scribed in recognisable Arabic In Mecca and medina given the presence of recognisable Arabic predating it (this alleged work from a companion)- a conclusion that was never in doubt but proposed by insincere off-brand excuses of historians *Hadith are not meaningless fabrications that have no reflection of historical realities. At the very least they draw from real people who exist- this conclusion was never doubted but once again only offbrand wannabe historians make these kinds of outlandish claims that defy evidence. Another evidence to the historical reliability of the hadith is its description of the preservation of Quran in hadith which scholars affirm the “broad strokes of” being historical. *Another evidence being the fact that they so scrupulously preserved the Quran in the first place, meaning they weren’t unfaithful to the the words from the prophet by doctoring them so it lends itself to the plausibility that they were not unfaithful with his words in the hadith. *Another evidence is the documentation of prophesies in the hadith that only become fulfilled in todays time; which lends itself to not only their reliability for documenting the truth of the future dozens of times over but also access to the knowledge of a Well informed being that they attribute these prophecies to (which they received from this being’s prophet). My identification of the catalyst driving pre Islamic monotheism is down to either Christians, Jews, or hunafa. Most plausibly hunafa since if the catalyst was christians then they plausibly would have specified a more orthodox praise of god in the inscriptions (which would include Jesus’ praise, which none of the inscriptions do). It’s doubtful that it was the Jews since they aren’t in the business of mixing with gentiles and generally have their own writing conventions and Hebrew to write in. Therefore it seems that the hunafa movement became more well known and prevalent and left their mark with inscriptions (I speculate that their presence increasing was due to the battle of the elephant; a miracle that reminded the Arabs of the sanctity of this Kaaba that they believed was attached to Abraham. Since it was now being protected by god from the army of elephants and the hostile force, they increased in their devotion to who they knew the god of Abraham to be; Allah and many adopted that belief system)
Everything you write is bs
Imam Ali was not of a Shiite faith, and he was linked to the people of Hijaz because he was one of them and they were all Muslims. There was no such thing as Shiites at that time. As for the army of Imam Ali, it is a political Shiite army, and all the Sunnis are Shiites of Imam Ali, that is, supporters of him. Today's Shiites have a different faith and have no connection to the Arabian Peninsula at all. The Shiites in Iraq and Iran are far from the understanding of Islam in belief from the family of the Prophet Muhammad. Therefore, the family of the Prophet Muhammad in Hijaz, that is, the descendants of Imam Ali, the sons of Hassan and Hussein, reject the Shiites and disavow them.
You repeat like a parrot the ideology formulated by ill-intentioned people who seek to deny a reality which is found in all the texts and even those from which you claim, that is to say the negation that Imam Ali (as) had his own supporters and was at odds with many other companions. The word Shiite means partisan in Arabic and it is used in the Quran in the sense of "taking sides" so it is an Arabic word that designates a person who takes sides with Ali regarding the subject that interests us.
@muhammadhaydar3073 Great scholars' companions were part of Shia of Ali, like Abdullah Ibn Abbas and many other. Yet there were no Shia. Shia of the time of Ali was political due to the death and difference between Muawiya and Ali.
@@HajjiJesus Shi'a means partisan and Ali (as) had supporters, we saw this clearly during the succession and what happened at the saqifa. And why would they have been supporters of Ali (as)? This is because they considered that he was the most suitable to succeed the Prophet (saws) and that they considered him different from the other companions, so there were many Shiites of Ali (as) from the beginning. The Prophet said to 'Ali (a): "I swear by the one who controls my life that this man (Ali) and his Shi'ites will be saved on the Day of Resurrection. » Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti, Tafsir al-Durr al-Manthur, Cairo, vol. 6, p. 379
@@muhammadhaydar3073 I have been debating with Shia for close or more than 10 years. I know Shia use of anything be it Tafsir, History, fabricated narrations, weak ones. Are you really up to the challenge for bring Evidence that Ali RA was more than Companion, cousin, son in law, and one of the greatest Sahabas of the Prophet SAW. *Are you able to bring an Authentic proof that Ali RA was born inside Kabba, knew Quran before revelation, knows the unseen, can hear and sea you, can bring to life and death to someone, had control of the atoms of the universe, and many Marvel things Shia believe without a proof?* You don't want to open a can of worms. My best advice to you and me, let us learn Quran. Let it be our Criterion. It will guide us to the correct path Inshallah.
More and more documented history of pre-Islamic and early Islam being discovered in Arabia conforms quite closely with the traditional resources that reached us!
Naah
Ahmad jallad himself said they never found any polytheist inscription 2 hundred years before islam ...so no
Ahmad Al-Jallad in a article from a Dutch newspaper last year titled; “Islam did not appear out of thin air” (read the last sentence carefully) The pre-Islamic inscriptions in this script are sometimes religious in nature, says Al-Jallad. “We see vocabulary on stone that is reflected in the Quran. Think of texts about obeying God and asking God for forgiveness. And that's all about one God. If we base our picture of pre-Islamic Arabia on material evidence alone, then one must conclude that the area was monotheistic. We know that Christians and Jews lived in the south and in the Hejaz we have inscriptions about Allah or Al-Ilah. The people also call this god Rabb, lord, a term that comes from Jewish and Christian liturgy.” These findings may be difficult to reconcile with Islamic tradition, but they fit well with what is recorded in the Quran, Al-Jallad believes. “It often talks about Jews and Christians, but polytheism only appears twice. What later Muslim historians have written about this should be seen as folklore. They felt the need to make pre-Islamic history more exotic.”
@@krisc3371Does mr. Jallad means the hadith tradition or the Muslim historians?
@@CabbarBinHayyam both
Sorry but this clearly a later inscription from not earlier then the 8th century ...the style of writing is clearly kufi B (8th century) , that can be seen in "أوصي" and especially how he wrote the ي under the ص , in how the ـه is writen Handallah lived till 3 hijri !!! We have no kufi from that time or earlier I'm shocked to see al jalad participating in this ! And , putting everything aside , the only thing that can make us believe it is an inscription by the hand of Handallah is the name ! There is no date , we can't carbon date rock inscriptions (thus the fact that they are a secondary or third source and can never equal animal/vegetal support manuscripts) But amru and handallah are very commun names , there are thousands of Amru who named their sons Handallah ! So how do you know he is not a simple worked that halped in the building of the mosque attributed to ali (with also no proof) ?! Or a person that lived in later generations ?! Or a 21 century saudi muslim who wants to fight dan gibson's theories , just like those who wrote the inscriptions attributed to omar near mekka but didnt care about the history of paleography
This is just speculation. The name is most likely a conicendence. Both researchers in the video most likely made the mistake of using names from Mohammad's biography, which was written 200 years later, to connect them with the name on the inscription. There is no historical evidence for any caliph, including Ali. Muewaye was the first historical ruler of the Arab empire, and he later sent his general to establish a summer vacation site in Taif. There's nothing more. We need more evidence to counter the majority of the arguments advanced in support of Islam's origins near the Roman-Byzantine and Persian borders. We also need evidence for Mecca and other claims in the tradition.
If you watched the video, you'd know that they say it can't be known it's the same person. That's why even the title of their article has a question mark at the end of it. Also, the biographies were put on paper 200 years later, but the accounts were circulating orally earlier than that. Just as with the Gospels. Obviously this is not to say they should be taken at face value. At the same time, it's going beyond skepticisim to say everything in the biographies are fabricated lies. If you do that, then you're the one making a strong claim without enough proof. Historical critical method by Western scholars has shown some aspects of the traditional narratives to be true - Uthmanic canonization of the Quran, 4 main scribal centers, etc. So you can't just reject it all outright. All they're saying is that considering the time and place where the inscription occurs, plus the name, make it quite plausible it's the companion referred to in the siras.
It is interesting that the Taif inscriptions don’t use the term “Arrahman” - so the monotheism is very early and will only merge with the Yemeni cult of Arrahman later, to become beginning of Islam as we recognize it by the collection of the Quran.
Must be « god » .. sudenly 🤪🤪🤪
profit mu ham mad was a jew, my friend Narrated AbuNamlah al-Ansari: When he was sitting with the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and a Jew was also with him, a funeral passed by him. He (the Jew) asked (Him): Muhammad, does this funeral speak? The Prophet (ﷺ) said: Allah has more knowledge. The Jew said: It speaks. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: Whatever the people of the Book tell you, do not verify them, nor falsify them, but say: We believe in Allah and His Apostle. If it is false, do not confirm it, and if it is right, do not falsify it. The Prophet (ﷺ) used to copy the people of the Scriptures in matters in which there was no order from Allah. what did mu ham mad learned from jews!!! al lah said these is my seal of a false profit.
. Allah is one of 360 Arabian gods. Others include Allat, AlUzza, AlManat, Hubal etc.
no
@@jj-yi1ne Read quran 53 : 19-20
@@Hasan.ibn.Ali. 3 gods don't equal 360
@@abuzuhm There was 360 Arabic gods in total. Mohammad merged them into one. (Quran 38 : 5 are the words of Mohammad's foster father ).
yeah, that's nonsense.
It is very difficult to prove any of this. The arabic we know today is a derivative of the pahlavi (middle persian) alphabet which is used by iranians and arabs with 4 letters less .
If Muhammad existed, why there is no inscription of the name Muhammad??? He should be very famous at that time and anyone can put his name on the stones... Bizarre!
He is mentioned in non-Muslim sources within few years of his tranditional date of death
Inscriptions for “Muhammad” do exist and pre-date the idea of “prophet Muhammad” by …. I don’t remember but around a 100 years or more. You will find them in Yemen. Also the character of “Muhammad” as the leader of the believers is mentioned in the early Christian sources - he is described as both a merchant and a highly educated man, a soldier as well. The man is probably Omar Ibn Khattab and the term “Armies of Muhammad” mean something like “armies of Christ” where the “leader” is a spiritual being and not a human. So the early Christian writers would hear about “army of Muhammad” and call the man who was in charge - “Muhammad”.
@@arta.xshaca actualy not before 8th century, very very strange... even muhamed is titke for Chruist believe or not
@arta.xshaca I think one of those non Muslim sources says he is alive after his acclaimed death. I think it's something about him coming into Jerusalem?
Yes, I agree he was mentioned by some syriac Christians. For example, Doctrina Iacobi Nuper Baptizati, 13-20 AH / 634-640 CE. Written by a Christian apologist, this anti-Jewish tract illuminates the story of the forced conversion of a Palestinian Jewish merchant named Jacob to Christianity. After reading the scriptures, instead of resenting his forced baptism, he recognises the truth of his newly found faith and is eager to share his experience with other Jews. Though it is quite clear this is a fictitious account designed for apologetic purposes, the historical details of contemporary events accurately recounted by the anonymous author reveals some quite startling information - the appearance of a new Prophet among the Saracens. When the candidatus was killed by the Saracens, I was at Caesarea and I set off by boat to Sykamina. People were saying "the candidatus has been killed," and we Jews were overjoyed. And they were saying that the prophet had appeared, coming with the Saracens, and that he was proclaiming the advent of the anointed one, the Christ who was to come. I, having arrived at Sykamina, stopped by a certain old man well-versed in scriptures, and I said to him: "What can you tell me about the prophet who has appeared with the Saracens?" He replied, groaning deeply: "He is false, for the prophets do not come armed with a sword. Truly they are works of anarchy being committed today and I fear that the first Christ to come, whom the Christians worship, was the one sent by God and we instead are preparing to receive the Antichrist. Indeed, Isaiah said that the Jews would retain a perverted and hardened heart until all the earth should be devastated. But you go, master Abraham, and find out about the prophet who has appeared." So I, Abraham, inquired and heard from those who had met him that there was no truth to be found in the so-called prophet, only the shedding of men's blood. He says also that he has the keys of paradise, which is incredible. The striking thing is that Muhammad never been mentioned in Mecca or Médina. Perhaps existed in Syria, Jordan and Palestine. This another proof that Hadith and Seera were fabricated, as all of them mention Muhammad in Mecca or Médina and never put his feet in Palestine.
So. One hour and 12 minutes talking about this wonderful newly found inscription.. And you neither show a picture of it, or read it fully in its original form. Bravo. Academia had reach a new low👎
That's what i was waiting for. All these tech making things easy in 2024 and yet it's as if they are passing scrolls to each other. I guess they really want us to get to the research paper, assuming it even has any picture.
Poor Gabriell tried hard to sidetrack Jallad and Sidky but ultimately ended up confirming the traditional narrative of Islam and Quran
stop it please. that's not true
@@baybars3138 what's not true? That Gabriel hardly does any segments in origins of Bible and it's provenance? Or the fact that Gabriel is biased towards Christian and in each segment he tries to steer the conversation in such a way that it will lead to some doubts about Arabic , Quran and the Prophet Unfortunately he didn't succeed. Sidky and Jallad reaffirmed the origins of Arabic, Quran and Prophet to Hejaz
There is value in skepticism
@@StatisticalCat bingo!
@@StatisticalCat He is a scholar of islamic history so he is excited about how Islam formed in early years. He is not scholar of Christianity, may be a Christian but he is trying his best to be unbiased, that's what I see.
These are all interesting theories. But if we are looking purely from a quranic geographical perspective, Muhammad and his people were all located within the Levant area of jordan Palestine Syria. A good handful of quranic verses support this. The inscription these gentlemen found which reads “in your name our lord” which is a christian opening statement indicating this was made by the person BEFORE he became a companion of the prophet. EDIT: since KZhead is filtering my response. For those who say the Quran doesn’t imply its geography in the levant where all other prophets lived. Please see Quran 37:134-138, 12:109 as an example. Open your minds
"But if we are looking purely from a quranic geographical perspective, Muhammad and his people were all located within the Levant area of jordan Palestine Syria." no it doesn't, stop repeating christian missionary lies.
@@hijazlander it sure does friend. Read the Quran.
It sure doesn't, my ignorant man.@@joeshaer777 The Quran mentions Makkah, Madinah and circumstances of battles around them. The dialect of the Quran matches the Hijazi dialect as well, like some voiced consonants which are unsurpsingly voiceless in your favorite Jordan/Levant's dialect. And I know which times I am talking of...clearly not of the present. Do actual research before telling factoids from other ignorant folks 😂😂
@@arta.xshaca Hello dear @arta.xshaca - yes your response is expected and reflects you pretty much have things backwards. I have done my research so allow me to help you: YOU SAID: RESPONSE: Yes it does. The unfortunate assumption you are holding, however, is that 'mekkah' and 'medina' are in modern day Saudi Arabia 🙃. Such an assumption demonstrates you've little to no idea what you are talking about 👏. 1) The Quran consistently acknowledges the 'people of the book' (Christians and Jews) and addresses them as part of the Quranic audience and geography (Sura 5:68). 2) The Quran uses the term 'bekkah' (3:96) which Islamic scholars conveniently say is the ancient name for 'mecca'. Incidentally, Bekka, according to the bible is a valley (Psalms 84) where a battle took place in 2 Samuel 5:23-24 near Jerusalem (i.e. The Levant). 3) Likewise, the term 'yathrib' in the Quran (Sura 33) actually uses the phrase 'people of yathrib' which refers to Jethro (Moses' father in law) who were located in/near the levant area. Interestingly, the term yathrib has been used in pre-Islamic arabia in Iraq to the northern parts of modern Saudi Arabia. 4) Furthermore, the Quran is clear that the audience had direct access and travel to and from the dead sea region where Lot was (Quran 37:137-138). How can those living in modern Mecca travel by day and night to the dead sea? Unless they had flying camels, this doesn't make any sense: Sura 37:137-138 You certainly pass by their ruins day and night. Will you not then understand? وَإِنَّكُمْ لَتَمُرُّونَ عَلَيْهِم مُّصْبِحِينَ ١٣٧ وَبِٱلَّيْلِ ۗ أَفَلَا تَعْقِلُونَ ١٣٨ 5) The Quran also mentions the audience of Muhammad 'saw/witnessed' the three goddesses of allat, manat, aluza (sura 53) - again located in the Jordan area: Now, have you considered ˹the idols of˺ Lât and ’Uzza,and the third one, Manât, as well? This is not to mention the fact the Quran uses biblical terms like 'marwah' which refers to Mount Moriah in the bible - in Jerusalem... I can keep going but will stop for now... The point is, when it comes to the Quran it is clearly acknowledging things happening where all the previous prophets lived (primarily the levant area).... Hopefully you will be able to provide cogent rebuttals to these examples. YOU SAID: RESPONSE: The fact is not you (or I) know the 'dialect' of the Quran because the oldest known manuscripts of the Quran do not contain diactricts. It is precisely why today Muslims have different 'qiraat' of the Quran with different accents (not to mention different words) and pronunciations. It is precisely why Uthman decided to 'burn' the Qurans that supposedly did not jibe with 'his' Quran 🤫. And yet, there are still different 'qiraat' of the Quran today. So yes friend, I have done my research - have you?
@@joeshaer777 One problem of your assesment is that you too much rely on the bible with its modern defective geography imposed on it, as a justification/proof for these assertions.
وين جماعة الإسلام صناعة عباسية؟😂
One found an inscription and the other one creating a story around it. LOL
What do you mean? What story exactly? He was just describing who that Sahabi was possibly who may have written that inscription. They are not saying, that's 100% correct. That's highly plausible
Dont be stupido 😂😂😂
Hanif means "a stray from the truth", and does not mean believer. When Quran says "he was Hanif and believed in God", it means even thought you are Hanif, yet you believe in God! We still talk this way til today, like when you say "inta arabi w minnak same3 bi Um kalthum!?" (You are Arab, and never heard of Um Kalthum ". Wierd that those experts don't know this 🤔
it means one who searches for the truth
@@mohammedhanif6780 sorry man, but no it doesn't. Islam later gave it that meaning, because they did not understand what the Quran is saying.
@@gk-qf9hv Where did you get your meaning from? From which century? Which Classical Arabic dictionary do you use to make up your own translations? From which century is that dictionary?
@@AlonzoHarris235 You really think that there was an Arabic dictionary at the time of the prophet? Today the word Hanif means good believer. But 1400 years ago it meant the opposit.
@@gk-qf9hv There was no dictionary. You rely on later meanings. How do you know a meaning of a word? How do you know how to read and pronounce script? How do you know all these things? You rely on oral transmission of meanings and knowledge how to read script. I don’t even think you understand what language and linguistics means. Your interpretation comes way later. You pretend your interpretation and translation is historical. But you can’t provide any historical source of a person who agrees with you.
Fascinating talk but proves nothing really about the origins of Islam. One has to do incredible leaps of faith to connect the so-called historical dots.
Christian apologists could only dream of having similar evidence about the origins of Christianity.
No such thing as paleo Arabic, plenty of rock inscriptions from the companions already exist, had been documented. It's ludicrous that the two authors, speak in third person of the paper being published, they're the authors and this is a publicity stunt.
but allah was a god before Muhammed. Muhammed's father's name was Abdullah ibn Abd al-Muttalib. The name itself shows that the pre-Islamic pagan Arabs worshipped a God (allah). Sounds like you're getting what you want out of the inscription, without bringing the fact that the Pagans worshipped some god named Allah (god). Please explain the meaning of Abdullah ibn Abd al-Muttalib, and how he could be worshipping the God of Muhammed or be a slave to Allah, if Allah wasn't also a pagan god, since he got his name well before any revelations from Muhammed.
The Arabs are ishmaelites and Allah as the God of Abraham was known to them but they also worshiped gods whit hey beloved would intercede on their behalf with Allah the creator
So lucky the Wahhabis didn’t destroy it
Quran predicts the arrival of rasulullah Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (p. u. b. h).
Have you lost your senses my friend
@@justice70567 aren't u waiting for mahdi
@@Lalalala22537 No i am waiting for my death, and even if i was waiting for the mehdi, it still will never proof that mirza ghulam is the messiah , mehdi or a prophet. Bro how can you believe in something which is so obviously false.
The Prophet Muhammad(pbuh&f) said that there is no Prophet after him (Hadith al-Manzilah). Thus every Prophet after him(pbuh&f) is a liar
@@justice70567 Biggest sign of sun and moon eclipse which were shown by God 1893 in Asia and in 1894 in USA. The Sign is described in Quran and also in Ahadith.Jesus came at the beginning of the fourteenth century after Moses, and the founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad appeared at the beginning of Islam’s fourteenth century.
Allah was always a part of the worship of the people of Hijaz. Remember that monotheism was introduced by Abraham through his son Ishmael. So the concept of the one god was not foreign pre-islam. But over the years, the monotheistic religion was corrupted and polytheism by the introduction of deities as intercessors was incorporated. So they were aware of the one supreme, but adulterated and introduced other gods so that more money could be collected during pilgrimage to mecca and the ka'bah which had existed since the time of Abraham and Ishmael.
Total crap.