What do we know of Khybar?
-
Peace Maxq,
Please view this inscription. It indicates that Khybar was destroyed in 567CE
http//www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/harran.html
How does this reflect the conquest of Khybar of the Islamic tradition?In the same way that the defeat of Abraha's expedition into Arabia never really happened, the traditional defeat of the Khaybar Jews and the slaughter of its Jewish inhabitants never really happened.
What you are noticing here is part of a systemic trend. It is a trend that pushes the dating of historic events forward and gives credit to the Arabs or transforms the Arabs from losers to winners. Such traditional stories that fuel the nationalist identity were in high demand during the Abbasid era to counter the influences of the stronger Roman and especially the Persian identities. This is how the indistinct Arab identity distinguished itself and avoided being assimilated by those other cultures and emerged as a new strong identity that unites the empire. Unfortunately, this worked both ways. So for example, a Persian cultural tradition could very easily be part of this new strong empire by giving it an Arabic origin in the wilderness. This is how the five times a day Persian Geh prayers became the Arab prayer, same with the Sassanian era story about a holy man?s night journey on a winged horse, the Zoroastrian Sarat bridge, etc...
As a slang common people language, Arabic was rarely written in pre-quranic times. It was only written when the author wanted to make a cultural point. The writer of the inscription was clearly a Roman-Christian Arab. He clearly took the event at Khaybar as a very negative disaster for the Arabs (while it wasn?t significant for the Romans) and hence the culturally motivated switch of the language from Greek to Arabic. This could have been either a manmade or natural disaster.
If it was a natural disaster then it perhaps caused a catastrophic failure of the famous irrigation system and large dam in Khaybar. If it was manmade then the context could be what several Byzantine authors report as conflicts between Jews and Roman-Christians in the 6th century AD. So it is possible that the inscription is referring to the Jews conquering Khaybar from what could have been its Arab Roman-Christians Ghassanid rulers.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Maxq,
In the same way that the defeat of Abraha's expedition into Arabia never really happened, the traditional defeat of the Khaybar Jews and the slaughter of its Jewish inhabitants never really happened.
What you are noticing here is part of a systemic trend. It is a trend that pushes the dating of historic events forward and gives credit to the Arabs or transforms the Arabs from losers to winners. Such traditional stories that fuel the nationalist identity were in high demand during the Abbasid era to counter the influences of the stronger Roman and especially the Persian identities. This is how the indistinct Arab identity distinguished itself and avoided being assimilated by those other cultures and emerged as a new strong identity that unites the empire. Unfortunately, this worked both ways. So for example, a Persian cultural tradition could very easily be part of this new strong empire by giving it an Arabic origin in the wilderness. This is how the five times a day Persian Geh prayers became the Arab prayer, same with the Sassanian era story about a holy mans night journey on a winged horse, the Zoroastrian Sarat bridge, etc...
As a slang common people language, Arabic was rarely written in pre-quranic times. It was only written when the author wanted to make a cultural point. The writer of the inscription was clearly a Roman-Christian Arab. He clearly took the event at Khaybar as a very negative disaster for the Arabs (while it wasnt significant for the Romans) and hence the culturally motivated switch of the language from Greek to Arabic. This could have been either a manmade or natural disaster.
If it was a natural disaster then it perhaps caused a catastrophic failure of the famous irrigation system and large dam in Khaybar. If it was manmade then the context could be what several Byzantine authors report as conflicts between Jews and Roman-Christians in the 6th century AD. So it is possible that the inscription is referring to the Jews conquering Khaybar from what could have been its Arab Roman-Christians Ghassanid rulers.
Peace,
Ayman
You are in a way, treading on a thin line here. To much "could haves" and "would haves" in there. The last paragraph, that is.
-
Peace OPF,
You are in a way, treading on a thin line here. To much "could haves" and "would haves" in there. The last paragraph, that is.
I agree. Despite this, the scenario is still much more likely than the traditional account which contradicts Christian and even the Jewish manuscripts from the era which definitely show that the Jews were very close allies of the Saracenes well into the Umayyad dynasty.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Yes, and in the case of Khybar, it would be a direct hacking of a Jewish story against the Jews That of David and Goliath, but this time it is young and short Ali against the huge and ferocious Marhab.
Peace Maxq,
In the same way that the defeat of Abraha's expedition into Arabia never really happened, the traditional defeat of the Khaybar Jews and the slaughter of its Jewish inhabitants never really happened.
What you are noticing here is part of a systemic trend. It is a trend that pushes the dating of historic events forward and gives credit to the Arabs or transforms the Arabs from losers to winners. Such traditional stories that fuel the nationalist identity were in high demand during the Abbasid era to counter the influences of the stronger Roman and especially the Persian identities. This is how the indistinct Arab identity distinguished itself and avoided being assimilated by those other cultures and emerged as a new strong identity that unites the empire. Unfortunately, this worked both ways. So for example, a Persian cultural tradition could very easily be part of this new strong empire by giving it an Arabic origin in the wilderness. This is how the five times a day Persian Geh prayers became the Arab prayer, same with the Sassanian era story about a holy man?s night journey on a winged horse, the Zoroastrian Sarat bridge, etc...
As a slang common people language, Arabic was rarely written in pre-quranic times. It was only written when the author wanted to make a cultural point. The writer of the inscription was clearly a Roman-Christian Arab. He clearly took the event at Khaybar as a very negative disaster for the Arabs (while it wasn?t significant for the Romans) and hence the culturally motivated switch of the language from Greek to Arabic. This could have been either a manmade or natural disaster.
If it was a natural disaster then it perhaps caused a catastrophic failure of the famous irrigation system and large dam in Khaybar. If it was manmade then the context could be what several Byzantine authors report as conflicts between Jews and Roman-Christians in the 6th century AD. So it is possible that the inscription is referring to the Jews conquering Khaybar from what could have been its Arab Roman-Christians Ghassanid rulers.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Please view this inscription. It indicates that Khybar was destroyed in 567CE
http//www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/harran.htmlHow does this reflect the conquest of Khybar of the Islamic tradition?
http//www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Articles/companion/20_ali_bin_talib.htm