Jump to content

Ibn Al-Ja'abi

Chatroom Moderators
  • Content count

    472
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ibn Al-Ja'abi

  • Rank
    Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Umar Al-Ja'abi
  • Birthday 11/10/1997

Profile Information

  • Location
    Canada
  • Religion
    دين على

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

7,618 profile views
  1. Tajikistan Now One Third Shia

    The Tajiks are ethnically Iranian people, not Persian. Persians are another Iranian people, but we should take care not to think of Persian and Iranian synonymously. Iranian peoples refers to an ethno-linguistic group of people who speak languages from the Iranian branch of Indo-European languages. Persians are among this group of peoples, but are not the only Iranian People. In addition, most Tajiks speak the Tajik varieties of the Farsi language, but not all. Some speak other Iranian languages. Turkic peoples are another ethno-linguistic group. Turkic peoples dominated large portions of Central Asia from the sixth century to the twelfth centuries AD and would harass empires such as the Persians and the Chinese, and eventually the Arab empires. The Oghuz Turks swept down from Central Asia through Iran and Iraq in the eleventh century AD and founded the Seljuk empire. A large population of these Oghuz Turks were in Azerbaijan and went on to form the Qaraquyunlu and Aqquyunlu confederations, from the latter the Safavids emerged to found their empire. Another large portion of the Oghuz Turks were found in Asia Minor where they had set up petty kingdoms, which would eventually be united under the Ottoman Turks who'd go on to conquer the Balkans up to Vienna and large parts of the Islamicate world as well. Turks were also found in Iraq where people as late as the twentieth century would write about how they would pilgrims and farmers. As you said, these Turks who would come to settle in the Islamicate world and found confederations and kingdoms in modern-day Turkey, Azerbaijan, Khorasan, and parts of Syria, Iraq, and Iran were not an Iranian people (interestingly though, like the Iranians millennia before them, they first were nomads in Central Asia before portions of them migrated south), they were Oghuz Turks, who themselves are part of the Turkic ethnic group. They obviously in contact with Iranian people including the Persian people, but, as you said, are not among the Iranian peoples. Definitely not, see the above for why. Interestingly enough medieval writers described the Turkmen (a generic term for Turkic people) as having epicanthic folds. A terracotta model even depicted a Turkish Ghulam soldier with such features. A Note: It's very difficult to speak of ethnicity as you are doing. "Arab" is a good example of passing ethnicity. Iraqi, Lebanese, and Syrian people generally themselves Arab but two thousand years ago would definitely not have. When the Prophet was born the lingua franca of those regions would have been Syriac but one-hundred years later it was Arabic. By the Mongol incursions the majority of the people in those areas would have viewed themselves as Arab despite the fact that six-hundred years before the "Tayyaye" or "Saracens" were the savages to the south. Obviously there are very useful things to identify an ethnicity, such as shared cultural practices, shared religious and world views, shared languages (or language branches). But clearly ethnicity isn't something set in stone, rather a way people view themselves which can shift, evolve, and/or change with time. That's why it is the case that a Syrian wasn't Arab in the sixth century AD, but his descendant was Arab in the thirteenth century AD. That's why I said "ethno-linguistic" and not "ethnic", I was discussing ethnicity in the capacity of language, not as an abstract concept.
  2. Hadith of Najd

    How does this ayah prove that the Najd of the Hadith is the Najd of Saudi Arabia from which the Wahabist ideology emerged?
  3. The Hebrew Backdrop of Makkah, Bakkah and Zamzam

    I mean this is really just stating the obvious. The Qur'an largely behaves ahistorically, you might notice that from the lack of chronology or dating it has in its stories. Sayyid Sulayman Hasan Abidi has a good podcast episode on this. The books which discuss history in the Bible behave differently very differently from one another and seem to have different aims depending on which book you're looking at. And if we were to speak of archaeology broadly rather than the sub-fields which make it up, then it requires interpretation and contextualization to create a narrative. These three sources have major overlaps, sometimes confirming each other, sometimes denying each other, but must be understood within their respective contexts. The account was shown to me by someone, it was recorded in Siyar A'lam al-Nubala of al-Dhahabi. When the Prophet entered the Ka'bah, there were icons of Angels and Abraham made on the pillars, and he ordered them all to be effaced except for one of the Virgin Mary and Jesus which was on a pillar next to the door. This icon remained until the Ka'bah was destroyed in the AD 692 during the siege on Mecca by the Umayyad caliphate to quell the Zubayrid rebellion. I'm not really sure why the Prophet would decide to keep it, I have some thoughts which I'm not too confident about at this moment so I'll refrain from sharing them.
  4. The Hebrew Backdrop of Makkah, Bakkah and Zamzam

    Like I said, there isn't really anything I can say to that. You can't really prove there was a nomadic shepherd who lived 4000 years ago, and claims about his Prophethood are theological, not historical in nature. Again, as I said Mecca the city according to local history was founded in the fifth century though the Ka'bah was a preexisting structure in the valley which the Bedouins pitched their tends around. There were apparently 360 idols in the Ka'bah, some of them were old divinities with cognates in other religions, like Allat. Some were been icons of pagan groups, there was apparently an icon of the Virgin Mary which was the only thing one not erased by the Prophet. Some might have been fetishes worshiped by the Bedouins. Mecca's prominence across Arabia as a religious center probably developed alongside its status as an economic hub in the peninsula. But according to Arab history the structure of the Ka'bah was archaic and ruined by the time of the founding of the city, built by Abraham and Ishmael and revered by Bedouins who would pitch their tents near the shrine and spring, and like previously said, this was a theological assertion, not a historical one. If the Bible contains a reference to Mecca, it is to Mecca the valley, not Mecca the city, the valley which held religious significance among Saracens as being linked to Abraham and Ishmael.
  5. The Hebrew Backdrop of Makkah, Bakkah and Zamzam

    @andres's various posts Bismillahi 'l-Rahmani 'l-Rahim What should be considered is that even Arab sources don't really discuss the establishment of Mecca as a city until around the 5th century with Qusayy who had the Bedouins build their houses around the Ka'bah, which according to sources was a dilapidated small building. Even then, the Byzantines had established their relations with the hegemonic powers of the region, the kingdoms of the south in Yemen and the tribal confederation of Kindah in the center, who were the only actual Arabs the Byzantines were concerned with in that early period -- the Yemeni kingdoms would still be "Arabizing" in this period and distinct languages would have still existed. Historically it was thought that a few references in old Greek works referred to Arabia, Macaroba in Ptolemy and the shrine that Diadorus talks about. However there has been a rising trend recently that this may not be the case. Ian D. Morris has written some excellent articles about this on his blog. Mecca as a Pre-Islamic city would have been a relatively new city by the time the Prophet Muhammad was born if we trust the Arab sources, acting as a caravan stop between Yemen and the North Arabian cities. Due to the volatile nature of the region such areas would rise and fade in popularity, it seems to be the case that Mecca was establishing itself as a prosperous city of commerce and rest stop in the lifetime of the Prophet. The recent Harb al-Fijar (sacrilegious wars) would have weakened its economical rival in the region, Ta'if, and the ongoing conflict between Persia and the Byzantines would have made West Arabia a safer route than East Arabia (ELII). Holland's (which is largely derivative and popular history) and Crone's works represent a single historiographical methodology about early-Islamic history which isn't accepted by all academics, is, I think, unjustifiably sceptical of the sources, and, as is seen in Hagarism, has reached some rather ridiculous conclusions. And as for the establishment of Mecca by Abraham, then I don't think you can seriously call this a historical position in the secular sense that most people would think of when engaging in the study of history. However, I definitely is historical in the theological sense and is itself a theological claim before a historical one. You wouldn't really be able to prove that Abraham, a pastoral nomad, created a shrine in western Arabia more successfully than being able to prove he existed. Yet the Torah, a series of documents written in the mid-first-millennium BC, and the Qur'an, a text compiled in the mid-seventh-century AD both rely on him as a necessary figure in their respective ethnogeneses during their periods of sacred history. I think Abraham's legendary founding of Mecca ought to be understood in this context, however, it should be understood that I'm not denying the validity of these stories. wassalam
  6. Pictures Of Various 'Ulamaa [OFFICIAL THREAD]

    The funeral of Shahid Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr.
  7. How would Arabia be if Islam never existed?

    If people could be banned for stupidity, you'd be on the short list. I have no idea how you can live with yourself.
  8. How the tragedy of Karbala is well documented?

    Alaykumussalam It's been nearly two months since I last replied so I'm going solely off my memory what the articles you linked said. Well you certainly did more than just share a link, you said about this link that it provides the documentation of Karbala in "the original and earliest sources". None of the things you claimed are correct, and your implication is unfounded. For one, it isn't sources, it's source. Farid or whoever authored the twelvershia article looked at one source, in the singular, not sources in the plural. The author of the article looks one of the oldest sources -- as there are older sources, one of which is still in existence -- which itself exists only as a reconstruction based off of fragments existing in another text. Al-Tabari's transmission to Abu Mikhnaf's reports are through Hisham al-Kalbi, who supplements them with other reports, some via intermediaries. These are from Awanah b. al-Hakam (d. 147 -- 10 years before Abu Mikhnaf), Jabir b. Yazid al-Ju'fi (d. 128 -- 19 years before Abu Mikhnaf), and al-Qasim b. al-Asbagh b. Nubatah (d. 1st century -- at least 57 years before Abu Mikhnaf). Awanah had written a K. al-Tarikh and a K. al-Sirah Mu'awiyah wa Bani Umayyah (Ibn al-Nadeem and al-Dhahabi). Jabir had a K. al-Maqtal al-Husayn (al-Najashi), which was apparently a hadith from Imam al-Baqir -- it has been quoted elsewhere as well with minor differences. And al-Qasim's father, al-Asbagh b. Nubatah (rh), had a K. al-Maqtal al-Husayn (al-Tusi) which he is possible quoting in his report. Al-Tabari could used these texts because he found their accounts to be more accurate than what Abu Mikhnaf wrote, or because Abu Mikhnaf didn't write about this. In either case Abu Mikhnaf's account clearly wasn't the definitive or comprehensive. And an earlier extant source -- not reconstructed, but extant -- exists, the Tasmiyah. Though it is a martyr list there is significant information about martyrs included. Just because a report doesn't exist in Abu Mikhnaf, it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Perhaps if you or the had any intellectual integrity in seriously engaging with history, you might have come across this. It'd be unreasonable to ask you to have any sincerity in actually trying to understand the suffering of the Imams, how could I ask for something that isn't there. Anyways, can't wait to read the next reply you'll be posting around Easter.
  9. Can God destroy Himself?

    The problem is that the question itself does not make sense when we consider the implication of the words being used in it. "God" in the classical theistic and traditional Islamic sense of the word entails an existent who (i) exists, (ii) his existence is grounded in himself and not an external cause, (iii) exists necessarily meaning it is impossible that he does not exist since it would lead to impossible conclusions. In other words, God is the necessary existent whose is the very act of existence, al-hayy "the Alive", or, as Aquinas would say, ipsum esse subsistens, the "subsistent act of existing itself". Therefore, a person who accepts this definition of "God" would say "no it is not possible that God does not exist since that would amount to saying 'the being which necessarily exists as the act of existing itself does not exist.'"
  10. Christianity in Pre-Islamic Arabia

    I've intended for this post to be a placeholder until I publish my next entry on the linguistic history of the Arabic language until the early Islamic period. I've adapted it from a post I made elsewhere. It represents an early phase in my research on the religions in pre-Islamic Arabia, it's rather informal but so is the nature of my research right now. InshaAllah it'll be added to, corrected, and fixed as time progresses. The presence of Christianity in Arabia was already centuries old by the time the Prophet was born. Historical Arabia was identified as a region spanning from the Eastern banks of the Nile to the Euphrates and as far north as the Syrian desert. According the Socrates Scholasticus, the Byzantine ecclesiastical historian, not the Athenian philosopher, a Queen Mavia (ماوية) of the Ishmaelites, who reigned from the late fourth century to the early fifth century, converted to Christianity. She went on to appoint a Bishop named Moses, another "Saracen" (Arab) who led a monastic life and was reputed to preform miracles. Eusebius writes about an Arab Monarchian named Beryllus, Bishop of Bostra. He believed that Christ was a distinct divinity but only possessed the Divine nature of God the Father after the incarnation. Origen of Alexandria converted him back to "orthodoxy" (in the lower-case sense of the word, not upper-case sense referring to the Orthodox Churches). It seems that by the birth of Prophet Muhammad there was a major presence of various "heretical" Christian groups. A misattributed dictum of St. Theodoret of Cyrrhus states that "Arabia hæresium ferax", "Arabia is the bearer of heresies". Scholars have attempt to identify the groups present in Arabia using antique and mediaeval sources and the Qur'anic description of their doctrines. Theophilos Indus, an Arian Bishop sent by Emperor Constantius II to Asia via Arabia as a missionary. He is reported to have converted the people of Himyar to Arianism. He was Heteroousian, a follower of the theologian Aetius, who denied that Christ and God the Father were of the same substance. It's possible that Arianism survived in the region. There was also a presence of Severan Monophysites, followers of Severus of Antioch who believed in the "natural union" of Christ's two natures, concentrated on the Red Sea coast (Hijaz and Yemen). The Julianists, a group closely related to the Docetists, are of particular interest due to their rejection of Christ having died on the cross -- a view also found in the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter (where Christ is in a tree and laughing at whoever is being crucified). Irfan Shahid states Ashab al-Ukhdud (People of the Ditch) that the Qur'an mentions were Monophysites. Their account is also mentioned in text called "The Book of the Himyarites", a Syriac work which was translated into English by Axel Moberg. Their leader was St. Arethas (Harith) was written about in the 7th century text Acta Sancti Arethæ/Martyrium Sancti Arethæ. There was also a Nestorian presence in Arabia. The Prophet was aware of this and the Qur'an even employs the Nestorian idea of "Isa b. Maryam" to deny that Christ is the Son of God. The aforementioned Book of the Himyarites also has a passage were Dhu-Nuwas employs Nestorian terms to refer to the Christology of the "majority of Christians" (in his realm). Though Monophysitism did become dominate after the fall of Dhu-Nuwas, Nesotrianism returned with the conquest of South Arabia by the Sassanids. In the lifetime of the Prophet, Nestorian missionaries from Najran would go to Ukadh to preach, and Prophet Muhammad encountered one who left an impression on him, Quss b. Sa'idah al-Iyyadi. He was possibly a bishop of Najran. Irfan Shahid mentions this as a matter of fact in "Islam and Oriens Christianus". However, he's also argued against this position in his entry on Quss b. Sa'idah in the Brill Encyclopaedia of Islam, saying that it was just a conflation of several facts about him and the Episcopate of Najran. Shahid believes there also might have been an Ethiopic Christian presence. This is based on what seems to be Ge'ez terms being used by the Qur'an, such as Nasara rather than Masihiyyun, Isa rather than Yasu'. Though in the case of the latter Arthur Jeffery demonstrates how this could have also happened as a result of natural linguistic corruption when the word transferred from Syriac to Arabic. References and Further reading: Irfan Shahid's article "ISLAM AND ORIENS CHRISTIANUS: MAKKA 610-622 AD" represents a bulk of the research here, I would highly recommend it. You might also want to check out Irfan Shahid's series on Byzantium and Arabia. Gabriel Said Reynold's The Qur'an in its Historical Context (both parts one and two) might also prove useful. And Darren M. Slade's article "ARABIA HAERESIUM FERAX (ARABIA BEARER OF HERESIES): Schismatic Christianity’s Potential Influence on Muhammad and the Qur’an ".
  11. Why studying Philosophy is wrong

    I'm not really sure that Yasir Qadhi understands: Epistemic schools of philosophy. The purpose of philosophy of ethics. What Decartes was trying to do with his radical skepticism. That Plato is not Aristotle (since he attributed Platonic thought to Aristotle). That disagreement in a field does not validate his rejection of it.
  12. homeopathy study / vision

    It's quack nonsense. If you want to study medicine then study actual medicine.
  13. Sufism, poetry and fisq/kufr

    To be fair, Muhammad-Taqi Majlisi was reputedly a Sufi and Allama al-Majlisi did attempt to disassociate that reputation from his father. This could be another instance of that attempt at disassociation.
  14. All of these languages are Central Semitic Languages, though Hebrew and Aramaic are more closely related than either are with Arabic, and all three descend from the same proto-language, that is Central Semitic which then broke apart into the North-West Semitic languages and Proto-Arabic, then the North-West Semitic languages broke off into proto-Aramaic and the Canaanite languages (among which is proto-Hebrew), but they did not descend from one another.
  15. How the tragedy of Karbala is well documented?

    Could you please clarify what exactly you mean? If I'm understanding you right, that @Abul Hussain Hassani and you mean to say that Abu Mikhnaf's (fragmentary) maqtal has no sources of its own, then that couldn't possibly be true. As I've shown before, that isn't at all true. Abu Mikhnaf extensively cites his informers in his work and doesn't include a report unless he can verify the witnesses. If you mean that it isn't the original work written on Karbala and used as a primary source about the events which took place at Karbala, then that also isn't true. The earliest extant work on Karbala al-Fadhil b. al-Zubayr's Tasmiyah, the author died either about 50 or 10 years before Abu Mikhnaf. And Abu Mikhnaf's Maqtal certainly wasn't the only source used by later historians, though it was heavily relied upon. For example, al-Tabari uses one other major informer aside from Abu Mikhnaf in his Tarikh.
×