Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Anoushirvan

Pages: [1] 2 ... 12
1
Salam,

I have an alternative and simpler theory about "hanif".

As indicated in this page: https://sites.google.com/site/arabichebrewlexicon/introduction/pronunciation-changes
it can happen that between for some cognate words in Arabic and Hebrew, the nun is dropped from Arabic to Hebrew.

E.g. for spider: ankabut in Arabic, akkavis in Hebrew. Or for pig: khanzir in Arabic, chazir in Hebrew.

This suggests that the correct cognate word of Arabic hanif (حَنِيف) is not Syriac hnp which indeed means pagan, but Hebrew chaf (חַף), which means clean, pure, innocent.

This theory also suggests that the original pronunciation of حَنِيف was not "hanif", but "hanfa", so that the nun can be easily assimiled to the f in Hebrew.



2
Salam,


I did my calculations again, and unfortunately I discovered mistakes that dismiss what I wrote above, so my apologies for that.
On the other hand, I made substantial progresses I believe, and found something very exciting.

First of all, I must correct the dates I gave for the 3 documents:

1) PERF558 : https://www.islamic-awareness.org/history/islam/papyri/perf558
2) Inscription of Hammat Gader : https://www.islamic-awareness.org/history/islam/inscriptions/hammat.html
3) P. Colt. No. 60 : https://www.islamic-awareness.org/history/islam/papyri/jerus

Document 1: the coptic date 30th Pharmuti indiction 1 corresponds to 25th April 643 and to the last day of Jumada al-Ula, not the first day of Jumada al-Ula

Document 2: the given date corresponds to Monday 5th December 662, not 5th December 663

Document 3: the given year from the Greek part (month of November 3rd indiction) corresponds to year 674, not 675, and to Dhu al-Qa'dah 57.

At this point, these dates are perfectly compatible with a fully lunar calendar.

But, we have a papyrus, P. Louvre Inv. J. David-Weill 20, that doesn't have double-dating but contains a sentence that makes a fully lunar calendar not possible : https://www.islamic-awareness.org/history/islam/papyri/plouvre

The sentence in Arabic is: الى مل الغيل الى مل اثنان واربعين
Which means "until refilling the tanks the end of (year) forty-two"
This document has been extensively analyzed here (unfortunately in French): http://www.ifao.egnet.net/anisl/41/10/

The sentence refers to the practice of basin irrigation on the Nile river, see e.g. http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/timelines/topics/agriculture.htm
Dams are built at right angle to the flow of the Nile, separating the Nile Valley into basins. At the time of the highest flooding (towards the end of September) most of the Nile Valley was covered with water, only villages and cities, built on higher ground and connected by dams, were above water. When the water level reached the mouths of the canals, the dams separating the canals from the river were opened and the basins and canals flooded.

So according to papyrus P. Louvre Inv. J. David-Weill 20, refilling of the tank happens toward the end of year 42 of the Arab era, which has to happen around September.
But in hijri calendar, Dhu al-Qa'dah 42 AH or Dhu al-Hijja 42 AH are not compatible with September 662, they fall in February or March 663.

Therefore, this papyrus clearly dismisses the case of fully lunar calendar in use in the 7th century, and a luni-solar calendar must have been in use instead.

But how could this luni-solar calendar have been built ? Here, the question is fairly complex.

According to Arab traditions, intercalation took place every three years after Dhu al-Hijja, and before Muharram.

I tried all three possible combinations, but I failed to get a calendar that matches all the 4 document dates above and more. Either one or another would fail and be not compatible with the intercalation pattern.

I also tried the suggestion of Noonwaqalami of adjusting month of Ramadan to the first new moon after summer solstice and it also fails on some documents.

If someone is interested I can share a big Libreoffice sheet.

So clearly, what the Islamic tradition tells about intercalation method is either not true, or it wasn't done this way in the 7th CE.

But I finally discovered a way to have working luni-solar calendar, and it is a big surprise: it was actually the Jewish calendar with two changes:

1) First year reset to year 620 instead of year -3761 of the normal Jewish calendar, and
2) More importantly, the Arab new year didn't begin with the month of Muharram but with the month of Dhu al-Qa'da instead !

More accurately, I discovered this matching between Jewish months and Arab months:

tishri        Dhu al-Qa?da ==> first month of the solar year (please note the Jewish calendar has others "new year").
heshvan   Dhu al-Hijja
kislev   Muharram
tevet   Safar
chevat   Rabi al-Awwal
adar   Rabi ath-Thani
nissan   Jumada al-Ula
iyar          Jumada ath-Thani
sivan   Rajab
tammuz   Sha?aban
av           Ramadan
elul          Shawwal

With this, all the dates of the above documents, and more now perfectly match.

The Arab era started on 1st Dhu al-Qa'da which felt on 4th September 620, which was 1st tishri 4381. I don't know what this date means but it is compatible with a notice from Jacob of Edessa.
If you want to compute a date in the Arab era of the 7th CE, you can do it with a Jewish-Julian calendar, then subtract 4381, and perform the month equivalence above.

Like the Jewish new year (1st Tishri), the Arab new year started around September. That explains the papyrus above.

When I started this topic I initially thought that this calendar was dropped under calife Abd al-Malik in favor of the fully lunar calendar, but actually a late document like this one dated from 706 https://www.islamic-awareness.org/history/islam/papyri/enlp10.html still uses the Arab-Jewish calendar.
So I don't know when the Hijri calendar that we know today was adopted.

A big consequence is that the Arab kingdom of the 7th CE was actually an Arab-Jewish kingdom !

A last word about Qur'an: it is not clear what kind of calendar is advocated in Qur'an although Surah 12 can only make sense with a solar or luni-solar calendar. If it is not the Jewish calendar that Qur'an refers to, then it means that Qur'an was not the reference book of the king / amir al-muminin. Which means that the Arab kingdom was not founded on Qur'an predication. That's also a big consequence.
 


3
Salam,

Peace, calculations show that current calendar aligns rolling back to Perf558 and Badr battle.

Please bring proofs that the Battle of Badr really happened. For example, did we find archeological remains of it ?

Quote
Here's another example: if rolling forward from Perf558 to reported date of Ali?s assignation?

https://www.timeanddate.com/date/durationresult.html?m1=4&d1=25&y1=643&m2=01&d2=29&y2=661&ti=on
From and including: Friday, April 25, 643 Jumād? al-ūl? 30, 22 AH Perf 558
To and including: Friday, January 29, 661 Ramadan 21, 40 AH Ali assassinated
Result: 6,490 days
((6,490 days) - ((40 - 22) x 12 x (29.53059 days))) / lunar month = 3.7 months after Jumād? al-ūl? 30

OR

https://www.timeanddate.com/date/durationresult.html?m1=7&d1=23&y1=643&m2=01&d2=29&y2=661&ti=on
From and including: Wednesday, July 23, 643 Ramadan 1, 22 AH
To and including: Friday, January 29, 661 Ramadan 21, 40 AH Ali assassinated
Result: 6,401 days
((6,401 days - ((40 - 22) x 12 x 29.53059 days))) / lunar month = 0.758 months after Ramadan 1

First of all, early testimonies disagree with the year of Ali' slain.
The Maronite Chronicle, http://www.christianorigins.com/islamrefs.html#maronitechronicler, places it in year A.G. 969. A.G. era starts in 312/311 B.C.
So according to this chronicle, Ali was slained in year 657 AD at Hira.

Second, there is a reasoning error here because the equivalence between Ramadan 21, 40 AH and January 29, 661 was set assuming a lunar calendar. Therefore it is putting the conclusion in the assumptions.

4
Questions/Comments on the Quran / Re: What could 'Badr' mean in 3:123
« on: September 20, 2018, 11:00:44 AM »
Salam,

Badr means full force or full maturity, like a full moon, and fits perfectly in the context of verse 3:123

3:123 And certainly Allah helped you with "full force" while you were weak. So fear Allah so that you may be grateful


Badr as a battle in the Sira of Muhammad comes from the fact that the mythical battles of Muhammad (because I believe these battles never existed) are shaped on the battles of Yehoshua bin Nun (successor of Moses) in the Book of Joshua, and also the Books of Maccabees.

Thus, the first battle that Muhammad is supposed to have fought is at Badr, which means full moon as above, while the first battle of Yehoshua was at Jericho.
However in Hebrew, Jericho is Yeriho, which is assonance with another Hebrew word, yerah, and this word means...tada... full moon !!

There are other similarities, like the second battle of Muhammad at Uhud was a defeat, like the second one of Yehoshua before Ai.

Another similarity is borrowed from the Book of Maccabees. Thus Muhammad is supposed to have fled to Medina, like the Maccabees fled to Modin.

Why having done this ? Justify that Muhammad was the new Yehoshua (Joshua), i.e. the Messiah, or the Christ returned to Earth.

5
I doubt of the ability of anyone to plunge into 7th century Arabia or into 15th century china or Alaska. We may imagine whatever we like, but we do not plunge at all. Just figure something according to our imagination and readings or films of any kind or quality that we may have come accros.

We do this when we do history, and history is a science, not imagination.

Quote
Better keep as much as possible to the written word and honest intellect, and  proceed only as we can foundedly proceed on that ground which is certain and at hand. Finally we are not pronnoucing ourselves ont he values or lack of them of any place or people on such and such a time, but on the value of a book that we do have as is, now, in our hands.

Salaam

I disagree here. The text we call Qur'an was primarily addressed to a specific audience in the 7th CE in their tongue and their social and cultural background (cf. verse 14:4), for a specific purpose.

It is not targeted at us, at first hand, at least not at me. Otherwise it would have been revealed in French (or in English) and using cultural references that are accessible to me, living in 21st CE.
It doesn't prevent us, living in 21st CE, to extract some wisdom from it, of course. But we must first understand what it meant in the 7st CE Arabia, then by delta from this epoch and place, we can understand which wisdom we can extract for us.

Otherwise we are hitting misinterpretation, and misinterpretation leads to spread corruption on earth in the end.

6
Salam,

let's deep dive in the 7th century in Arabia, before Arabic grammarians existed end of 8th century, before they could invent triliteral roots, before Arabic grammar could be codified.

Then, how would the Arab audience of the Messenger hear the word "Isra'il" in Arabic ?
They would hear it as the Hebrew counterpart, of course.
And they would also hear it as an assonance composed of two words : "isra" and "aal".
"Isra" means doing a travel in darkness, like in verse 17:1.
Aal means family, like in aal-Imran, aal-Ibrahim. It is probably a derivative of Ahl, people.

So they would hear by Israel the family of those who travel in darkness.

In verse 3:93 we read that every food was allowed to the Bani Israel, except that Israel forbade itself.
If we except God, which entity usually arrogates itself the right to rule in God's name that something is allowed and something else is not allowed ?

Priesthood of course !

So Israel in Qur'an is a nickname for priesthood, the kind of which arrogates itself the right to rule in the name of God.

Next, what means "Bani Israel" ?
Bin in Arabic means son in the sense of being nourished by the father, Ab. This nourishment can be physical or spiritual.
Another word, walad, means the son in the biological sense.

Therefore the "Bani Israel" are those that are spiritually nourished by priesthood that leads them astray in darkness.

7
Questions/Comments on the Quran / Re: killed the prophets
« on: September 02, 2018, 11:32:47 AM »
2.87 وَلَقَدْ آتَيْنَا مُوسَى الْكِتَابَ وَقَفَّيْنَا مِن بَعْدِهِ بِالرُّسُلِ ۖ وَآتَيْنَا عِيسَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ الْبَيِّنَاتِ وَأَيَّدْنَاهُ بِرُوحِ الْقُدُسِ ۗ أَفَكُلَّمَا جَاءَكُمْ رَسُولٌ بِمَا لَا تَهْوَىٰ أَنفُسُكُمُ اسْتَكْبَرْتُمْ فَفَرِيقًا كَذَّبْتُمْ وَفَرِيقًا تَقْتُلُونَ ﴿٨٧﴾


Salam,

Please note that كَذَّبْتُمْ  is perfect tense while تَقْتُلُونَ is imperfect tense. Also in other verses like 2:61 it is written Yaqtulūna An-Nabīyīna Bighayri Al-Ĥaqqi.
It is usually translated by something like "they killed the prophets without right (or justice)".

But how can one kill a prophet with right or justice ?

Literally it is written : they "kill" (imperfect) the prophets with the contrary of truth.
Which means they weaken the speech of the prophets with false case.

8
Salam !

You know, there are a lot of evidences that Arabia on the eve of 7th CE was not polytheist but monotheist.
For example, on the 5th CE, Sozomen of Gaza wrote that the "Saracens" were converted either to Christianity or Judaism.
South Arabia was Jewish and Christian.

If ever polytheism had remained at the beginning of 7th century, it was residual on the verge to disappear and couldn't justify Qur'an.

So when Qur'an accuses people to set-up partners with God, those people were actually monotheist.
If we could look at them, we would ask ourselves, what the heck did they do wrong ?

9

 my calculations.

Ok, but you didn't explain them.

Nevertheless, I take the opportunity to correct a reasoning error.

But before that, adjusting month of Ramadan on the first new moon after summer solstice (21st June) is intercalation.
Intercalation works exactly like that.
Suppose that year X, first new moon after summer solstice falls day A after mid-July. This new moon cannot fall after 19th July, because then, it means another new moon felt just on 21st June or 22nd June.
Then Ramadan will start on day A+1 or A+2.
On year X+1, the first new moon after summer solstice will fall day B before 9th of July. Ramadan will start day B+1 or B+2.
On year X+2, the first new moon after summer solstice will mostly fall again after mid-July (1) or exceptionally just a bit after 21st June (2).
In most case (1), it means that between 29th / 30th Chaabane and 1st Ramadan there are around 29 or 30 days unassigned.
This is exactly intercalar month.

Instead of summer solstice, one could have taken winter solstice instead or spring equinox or autumn equinox. In all cases, this amounts to intercalation of a new month every 3 years.
If Qur'an forbids that as per verse 9:37, then surely it demands a purely lunar calendar.

Now back to my reasoning error.
Actually PERF558 says only Jumada al-'Ula year 22, not the 1st Jumada al-'Ula. Therefore, 29th or 30th Jumada al-'Ula as in hijri calendar could actually work.
Therefore papyrus PERF558 alone does not contradict hijri calendar.

On the other hand, if we assume that 30th Jumada al-'Ula year 22 was the correct date of PERF558, then from document 2, the inaugural inscription in greek giving 5th December 663, it means that there is a difference of 8 lunations to catch up in 20 years.
I don't know how to do that.

If we come back to document 1 and the date of 25th April 643, I told above that the new moon felt on 24th April.
If we look closer at the moon phase table, we see that it happens around 00:26 UTC.
Also the algorithm loses precision as far we go backward in the past. So the new moon could have felt on the night of the 23rd April to 24th April, a bit before or a bit after midnight.
Therefore the first ascending crescent could have been visible on 24th April evening, making 25th April first day of a new month instead of end of the current month.

That's why I believe that 25th April 643 was 1st Jumada al-'Ula 22. Together with intercalation at the end of year 22, we can reach 5th December 663 after 7 intercalations.

By the way, I should add something about document 2.
I discussed whether it could have been dated from 5th December 662 or 5th December 663, and gave above some arguments about the latter.

An additional argument for it is that it says that 5th December of that year is second day of the week. Normally it's Tuesday.
5th December 663 falls on Tuesday, while 5th December 662 falls on Monday.

10
Peace -- incorrect see below ramadan, actually there are (2) northern & southern hemispheres.

Not relevant here, as we are Arabia.
 
Quote
It's always 1st lunar cycle after the summer & winter solstices; it is only way calculations work.

Source ?

Quote

Perf 558 "30 pharmouthi of the indiction year 1" 25 April year 643 shahru jumada the 1st (30th/last day of month)

http://astropixels.com/ephemeris/phasescat/phases0601.html

   NewMoon      shr#      FullMoon         Year
   
   Aug   1      1 RMD      Aug   15         
   Aug   31      2      Sep   14         
   Sep   29      3      Oct   13         
   Oct   29      4      Nov   12         
   Nov   27      5      Dec   12         
   Dec   27      6      Jan   10         643 CE
   Jan   25      7      Feb   9         
   Feb   24      8      Mar   11         
   Mar   25      9      Apr   10         
   Apr   24      10      May   9   Apr 25 Jumada al-awwal 30 (Perf 558)      
   May   23      11      Jun   7         
   Jun   21      12      Jul   7   1st full moon after solstice      
   Jul   21      1 RMD      Aug   5         
   Aug   20      2      Sep   3         
   Sep   18      3      Oct   3         
   Oct   18      4      Nov   1         
   Nov   17      5      Dec   1         
   Dec   16      6      Dec   31      

No, Ramadan is the 9th month of the year, not the 8th, and therefore will fall on Aug 21 for year 643, since PERF 558 has established that 25th April 643 is 1st Jumada al-'Ula.

Or you will have to explain when (under which reign ?)  Chaabane and Ramadan have been inverted to make Ramadan fall on July 21st.

Quote
THE LIFE OF BELISARIUS (see pages 192-193)

see link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hO0yu8LhF532lTPGxNzWY5uO2onmwqxY

On his arrival at Dara, Belisarius, instead of regular forces, found only a confused as semblage of soldiers; many without arms, still more without the spirit to wield them, and, according to their own national historian, trembling at the very name of Persia. He was joined by numerous Saracen auxiliaries, under Arethas; but little reliance could be placed on the co-operation of these fickle savages, attracted only by the hopes of booty. While busily employed in equipping and distributing his army, and in expectation of a speedy attack from the Persians, the Roman general sent some spies to obtain intelligence of their movements and designs. By such means, he soon became informed that no invasion was preparing in this quarter, and that Chosroes himself was engaged by a distant expedition of the Huns; a report which it will presently be seen had been spread by that wily monarch, to conceal his real intentions. A project was then formed by Belisarius, for resuming the offensive and entering the Persian territories; and having tried the resolution of his officers in a public council, he found their opinions favorable to his views. [June A. D. 541.] But the leaders of those troops commonly stationed in Syria, expressed their apprehensions lest their absence should enable Almondar to desolate their province. In reply, the general reminded them that the time of the summer solstice was at hand, when religious rites withheld these Arabs from any act of hostility during two months, and he promised to dismiss the Syrian soldiers to their post before this term should have expired. Having thus overcome their opposition, Belisarius crossed the frontier with all his forces, and marched upon Nisibis.

I'm aware of this, since the account of M.C. Perceval I mentioned quotes it, but it doesn't contradict what I explained.

Even the luni-solar calendar shifts across centuries, because one mean year of it doesn't fully match a yearly revolution of the Earth around the Sun.

Pages: [1] 2 ... 12