Twitter | Search | |
Michael Pregill Jan 17
Replying to @KhalilAndani @jricole
Yeah, I think you're missing the point. By that premise, virtually none of the contemporary work of a "revisionist" bent of the last twenty years is worth anything then, since it overlooks this "basic" feature of the Qur'an.
Reply Retweet Like
Juan Cole Jan 17
Most revisionist premises were incorrect; that doesn't in fact make the scholarship worthless; its achievements just don't depend on the incorrect premises. Wansbrough was wrong about almost everything basic, but there are great exegetical insights there
Reply Retweet Like
Michael Pregill Jan 18
Replying to @jricole @KhalilAndani
Been pondering this too. I don't think the premises per se are the problem - it's the conclusions. Wansbrough's premises are spot on - it's his conjectures that have been disproven. Same for Hagarism. Basic premises are sound, speculative conclusions are off. Way off? Not sure.
Reply Retweet Like
Juan Cole Jan 18
as I see it, a long chronology for Qur'an development, a non-Hijazi setting and a Jewish or Samaritan genealogy are all premises, not conclusions. There was never any evidence for any of them, and all are incorrect.
Reply Retweet Like
early voting in Texas until OCT 30 Jan 18
So you think Sabians lived in the Hijaz?
Reply Retweet Like
Khalil Andani, PhD Jan 18
I think Muhammad travelled outside Hijaz as per work
Reply Retweet Like
Juan Cole Jan 18
No one doubted that. The revolution is to think he was traveling diring his ministry so that Qur'an is sometimes addressing Syrians or Yemenis
Reply Retweet Like
Marijn "i before j" van Putten Jan 19
Any opinion on who the Sabians actually were? For a purely linguistic point I wouldn't mind them at all to be Mandaeans... but seems like it's difficult to establish with certainty.
Reply Retweet Like
ⲡϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲙⲡⲣⲱⲙⲉ Jan 19
Replying to @PhDniX @jricole and 3 others
Interestingly according to these narrations the polytheists called the 1st Muslims Sabians (why?):
Reply Retweet Like
Tom47748 Aug 19
This has been on my mind lately. What do you make of this proposal from Hamza Zafer’s 2014 dissertation?
Reply Retweet Like
Marijn "i before j" van Putten
I don't have much to add on this topic, ecept that *if* we accept the connection with Mandaic ṣḇā, then the correct reading is aṣ-ṣābūn, and aṣ-ṣābiʾūna would be hypercorrect. No obvious way to explain the appearance of the hamzah otherwise. Screenshot from my fthc. book.
Reply Retweet Like More
Juan Cole Aug 19
Replying to @PhDniX @tom47748 and 4 others
I think it is a loan from Greek sebeia as in theosebeis
Reply Retweet Like
Marijn "i before j" van Putten Aug 19
Replying to @jricole @tom47748 and 4 others
I kinda like that, although the borrowing with ṣād of the Greek sigma is a somewhat surprising. Also in that case the form without the hamzah should be preffered over the one with hamzah though!
Reply Retweet Like