The incorruptible mighty book
-
Peace JM,
We never heard about the shia in these reports. What were they doing during these times ?
Why would not the shia be those called pagans ?We don't hear about Muslims, Sunnis or Shias. Up to this point the religion whose proper name is Islam hasn't been invented yet.
Sunnis and Shias started out as political groups and later morphed into sects. This is what naturally happens when people use religion to further political agenda.
And what about the persians ?
And what do you think about that ?
4.Fredegar, a Frankish Chronicler (wr. 650s).The Hagarenes, who are also called Saracens . . . ?a circumcised people who of old had lived beneath the Caucasus on the shores of the Caspian in a country known as Ercolia
Thank you for the interesting quote. I think that the quote from Fredgar is in line with Saracens being from an area on the border of the Persian empire. I think that given the fact that there were no accurate maps at the time, he perhaps mixed the shores of the Caspian with the shores of the Persian gulf. The area on the Arab side of the Persian Gulf was the domain of the Lakhmids who were allies of the Persians.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Ayman, all,
I think that given the fact that there were no accurate maps at the time, he perhaps mixed the shores of the Caspian with the shores of the Persian gulf.
a circumcised people who of old had lived beneath the Caucasus on the shores of the Caspian in a country known as Ercolia
I think it is highly unlikely that he mistook the Caspian for the Persian gulf for several reasons.
1.) He mentions the Caucuses which are located near the Caspian Sea. (He would have had to be wrong about both the Caucuses and the Caspian).
2.) Even assuming that they didn't have accurate maps, which is unlikely, the geography is very different between the Caspian and the Persian Gulf, including the land that must be crossed to get to those regions .
3.) The waters of the Caspian Sea and Persian Gulf are quite different.However, he does say
a circumcised people who of old had lived beneath the Caucasus
,which seems to infer that they had originated from that area, but no longer lived there.
peace
-
Peace David,
I think that given the fact that there were no accurate maps at the time, he perhaps mixed the shores of the Caspian with the shores of the Persian gulf.
a circumcised people who of old had lived beneath the Caucasus on the shores of the Caspian in a country known as Ercolia
I think it is highly unlikely that he mistook the Caspian for the Persian gulf for several reasons.
1.) He mentions the Caucuses which are located near the Caspian Sea. (He would have had to be wrong about both the Caucuses and the Caspian).
2.) Even assuming that they didn't have accurate maps, which is unlikely, the geography is very different between the Caspian and the Persian Gulf, including the land that must be crossed to get to those regions .
3.) The waters of the Caspian Sea and Persian Gulf are quite different.However, he does say
a circumcised people who of old had lived beneath the Caucasus
,which seems to infer that they had originated from that area, but no longer lived there.
I don't disagree with you. All I am saying is that there could be different interpretations of Fredegar's words. From physical archeological evidence, we know that the script and language of the great reading wasn't used in the Caucuses but was used around the western and south western shores of the Persian gulf. So we have to evaluate all the evidence and not base anything on just one thing that someone said. This is especially the case if the person, in all likelihood was not from the area. So one of the possibilities is that, as you said, the chronicler believed that the ancestors of the Arabs (not the Arabs of his time) came from the Caucasus region.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Salam maxq,
You will find the beginning of this thread that you brought forward here. Unfortunately I coudn't insert the hyperlink to go directly. I'm not sure what I did wrong, but anyhow this should help.
Free-Minds > General Issues / Questions > General Issues / Questions (Moderators TheNabi, Wakas, idolfree1, Tay, savage_carrot, Nadeem) > The problem with Islam
The problem with Islam
? on July 02, 2005, 061921 AM ?adjwi
-
Peace be with you
Thanks for bringing this thread to the open again
Peace Ayman
??This, then, which they call "stone," is the head of Aphrodite, whom they used to worship and whom they call Chabar.?
The above does not say the pagans call their temple ?Chabar? or ?Chobar? but that they refer to Aphrodite by this name. Aphrodite is probably Hellenized goddess Al-'Uzza the goddess of power. ?Chobar? I believe is the Greek/Latin mis-pronunciation for ?Kabir? which is to say ?Great?. As for John of Damascus the pagans probably refer to their pagan god Al Uzza as ?Great/Kabir?.
-
Peace Warner,
??This, then, which they call "stone," is the head of Aphrodite, whom they used to worship and whom they call Chabar.?
The above does not say the pagans call their temple ?Chabar? or ?Chobar? but that they refer to Aphrodite by this name.They refer to the stone by this name and the stone is a symbol of a fertility goddess who was hellenized as Aphrodite. Basically, the temple is this idol's temple.
You didn't quote the previous part about showering the stone with kisses. Of course, this is clearly refering to the black stone which the sectarians still shower with kisses to this day. We can see from putting all the evidence together that this stone is a symbol of the head of the re-born fertility goddess coming out of the vagina-shaped enclosure.
Aphrodite is probably Hellenized goddess Al-'Uzza the goddess of power.
It could be. However, it could also be the hellenized Allat who like Aphrodite was a fertility goddess. On the other hand, the name Al-Uzza suggests more a goddess of power as opposed to fertility. Keep in mind that those three godesses were often combined and reflected different aspect of a mother goddess. So their identification is not absolute but it depends on what was in vogue at the time.
?Chobar? I believe is the Greek/Latin mis-pronunciation for ?Kabir? which is to say ?Great?. As for John of Damascus the pagans probably refer to their pagan god Al Uzza as ?Great/Kabir?.
I disagree. The name John of Damascus is a Romanized name that he was given. He was in reality a Christian Arab whose name was Mansur (see Hoyland). Surely, as an Arab, he knew his own language and the pronunciation of words better than any later generation. His transliteration of the word must be taken as closer to the actual pronunciation at his time than our modern view of how the word should be pronounced. Keep in mind that Mansur predates the invention of Arabic vocalization marks by several generations. Moreover, the word "kabar/kabor" (which could have also been equally vocalized "kobar" and also mean "big/great" is a valid Classical Arabic word. It even appears in the great reading (4035). So if it is a valid Classical Arabic word and it was transliterated by an Arab, then why come here hundreds of years later and claim that it was mis-pronounced?
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace adjwi, maxq, all,
Here is the original thread
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=10220.0
-
peace all,
I just came across this, I haven't read it yet, thought it might be useful
ARCHAEOLOGY AND THE HISTORY OF EARLY ISLAM THE FIRST SEVENTY YEARS
http//www.krc.ox.ac.uk/Publications/Jeremy%20Johns/Johns%202003(a).pdfAlso, Bro Ayman wrote a post on "how kaaba became a pagan idol" here.
