||"dawnbreak in the west"|
Thursday, February 12, 2015
Islamic origins is hard
My essays have hit some contradictions.
This recent problem hits to where I think that the Umayyads Uthman and Muawiya ignored sura 4 (about Jesus) when these two attacked the Byzantines. Thus "Early Umayyad Theories of the Cross", recently (and finally) posted. I'd always thought that the Qurashi amirs' ignorance / ignoring of sura 4 was fine. I was never heavily invested in sura 4 very long before the Dome of the Rock.
But now I see that the Umayyads didn't respect Jesus much at all. This because I'm seeing so much reference to Christian doctrine in their earliest texts - and almost always as parody. So I'm suspecting the Umayyads in the 20s / 640s of not wholly accepting any pro-Jesus sura. Bleeding into the 30s / 650s.
The grouping of "pro Jesus sura" includes - and so anti-Roman Arab doctrine excludes - sura 3 and herein lies the problem. Centuries later some Tamimis told the historian Tabari that their poets had cited "the muhkam of the furqan" at the court of "Ibn Affan". True, the most notorious Tamimi Sayf bin Umar had touched the isnad, and he lied a lot - but I couldn't just write off the whole account; it might be that Sayf was telling the truth, this time, to support his lies elsewhere. Thus "The Martyr for the Book", printed in The Arabs since 2012. The muhkam, I get - that's sura 17 - it's the furqan that implies sura 3. (Also sura 8, and sura 25 and more; but we don't care about them, if sura 3 be their fountainhead as I think it be.)
More: sura 3's furqan is universally, at least amongst us non-Muslims, held as Syriac. Specifically, Christian in origin. And it'll be the furqan, at least inasmuch as it implies Jesus and sura 3, which Uthman did not approve.
A decade ago, I dealt with a similar problem, involving Joos. I didn't resolve it. So I'm taking down The Arabs and Their Qur'an until I resolve this problem.
On this site
Property of author; All Rights Reserved