Talk:Pre-Islamic Arabia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Arab world WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Saudi Arabia Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Saudi Arabia, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Saudi Arabia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

How on earth have the "Ghaznavids" survived in this article this long?! Slackerlawstudent 17:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


Per discussions in other venues, I set this article up as a stub. I'll fill in what I can, later, but would much appreciate help from other editors. Zora 02:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] This is the end, my only friend, the end...

Any idea when Pre-Islamic Arabia ends? Might be helpful before we start filling in the sections. As far as I can tell, there are several possible dates:

  • 610 - Muhammad receives his first revelations of the Quran. There is an Islam now.
  • 622 - The Hijra. This is the date most Muslims would give and is the epoch of the Muslim calendar.
  • 630 - Muhammad conquers the Hejaz, crushing the armies of Mecca and Ta'if.
  • 632 - Muhammad dies, having unified the Arabian peninsula. (Although in many places he was only a nominal ruler)
  • 633 - Abu Bakr re-unifies the Arabian peninsula. :)
  • 661 - The end of the Fitnah and the beginning of the Umayyad Caliphate. Henceforth, the Muslim capitals will be in Damascus and Baghdad, not Mecca and Medina.

Palm_Dogg 03:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Darn good question. I'd say that the pre-Islamic era ended with the Ridda wars, since that is universally accepted as having unified all of Arabia under Islam. We can see the "Islamic era" as a widening circle, one that started with Muhammad's household and ended when all of Arabia was nominally Muslim.
But I could be argued out of it.
It would also be interesting to discuss the reversion of Arabia to a backwater (all the action moved to the areas around the steppes) and possibly a reversion to pre-Islamic ways of life. But perhaps that's another article :) Zora 07:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
In my humble opinion, I'd say it ended with Fath Macca. However, we could look for references and if the dates differ we could mention that. --Maha Odeh 06:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bedouin culture

We cannot describe Bedouin culture by talking about later Muslim
classifications of marriage forms. I removed the irrelevant material. There are useful discussions of Bedouin society in Watt (Muhammad at Mecca, Muhammad at Medina) and Donner (Early Islamic Conquests), probably in other books as well -- I just don't have them to hand.

I've just found a fascinating book, Arabia and the Arabs: From the Bronze Age to the Coming of Islam, Robert G. Hoyland; Routledge, 2001. It is based on the latest in archaeological research and it seems to be quite good. I'm reading it through my Questia account. So far, I'd enthusiasticly recommend it.

The Hawting book, overall, isn't that good. But the bibliography was useful. Zora 11:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recommended book for article editors

I would like to recommend to those editing articles about Islam and pre-Islamic history to check out a book titled "The Quran" commentary by yusuf ali

[edit] pre-Islam?

Implicit in this page, others that refer to it, and a few other Wikipedia pages is the idea that "pre-Islam" equates to "before the prophet Muhammed" or before "the rise of Islam" (whatever that means). Most Muslims will agree that Islam is an ancient religion of which Muhammed was the last (and greatest) of prophets; in other words, Islam did not begin with the prophet Muhammed. This is important, because if care is not taken, this sloppiness of thinking leads to the great mistake amongst non-Muslims of calling Muhammed the "founder" of Islam (which can cause great offence). --The Lesser Merlin 14:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

in English, "Islam" means "the religion established by Muhammad". In Arabic, islam means "piety". This is a confusion of Arabic and English usage, and not an actual problem. We wouldn't say, in English, that "Muhammad was the founder of piety", either. "Pre-Islamic" is perfectly current in English usage, and perfectly unambiguous. It has been current since the mid 19th century. The OED has:
pre-Islamic adj.: 1861 New Englander (New Haven, Connecticut) Jan. 41 Nor in the whole circle of Arabian literature is there anything that surpasses in true lyric fire and spirit these pre-Islamic poetic effusions. 1991 Saudi Med. Jrnl. 12 129/1 In the pre-Islamic period, female infants were often buried alive, but with the advent of Islam the rights of children became better recognized.
dab (𒁳) 14:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry dab, but in English, "Islam" does not mean "the religion established by Muhammad" and your argument about "Muhammad was the founder of piety" is an entirely spurious piece of nonsense. No part of your quote from OED justifies your assertion that "Islam" means "the religion established by Muhammad". To say that "Pre-Islamic" is perfectly unambiguous (ie aligns with your chosen meaning) is another assertion that you fail to justify. I note that chunks of this talk page are given over to your high-handed assertions and people's rejections of them.
Fact is, irrespective of all the clever arguments, most Muslims consider Islam to have been "founded" by Allah. You can't make it "established by Muhammad" without serving some agenda. --The Lesser Merlin 12:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
you apparently fail to follow the above argument. Right. OED defines the English word "Islam" as follows: "The religious system of Muhammad, Muhammadanism; the body of Muslims, the Muslim world." (while "Muslim" is defined as "a follower of the religion of Islam"). Any questions? dab (𒁳) 12:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ancient Arabia article

Their is nothing worth mentionning in Ancient Arabia, The people who left Ancient Arabia spread their language to Mesopotamia, thats not worth mentioning.

  • According to Elias and his best Admin friend (Dab) Ancient Arabia should be shoved into PreIslamic Arabia because Islam came and wiped all the ignorance (jahiliyah), case ended. Dab and Elias Islamist efforts (in Arabic Juhd) paid off! After all Arabia and Mesopotamia today are Islamic and the past doesn't matter--Skatewalk 19:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I actually liked the Ancient Arabia article, until you came and ruined it with your "every Semite is an Arab" mumbo jumbo. — EliasAlucard|Talk 21:22 17 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

I never did that? you didnt give me a time to fix it! The last version didnt even have the word Arab. It just said people who migrated out of Arabia!. Look at my last version and be specific on what is wrong? talk to Vonnones we had a talk about this. You can't brush everyone with th same brush! Just like the nexttime I find an Assyrian I will try ot to associate him with anything--Skatewalk 20:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Just add it here and we will see; that article was horribly unsourced and had controversial claims. --Vonones 20:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The article was horribly Vandalized and thats not a logical excuse to merge an article. Anyways, the Ancient Arabia topic became the main interest of the Ancient Arabia denial group. march on sporting your Genocide denials banners when you are doing the same evil. I used to like Assyrians and Armenians but that was the past great job!--Skatewalk 06:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

you are obviously too confused for reasonable debate. Your "Ancient Arabia" material may have a place in Tribes of Arabia, or more properly in articles on medieval Arab genealogy, such as History of the Prophets and Kings. Please note that, per our Arabia article, Mesopotamia and the Levant are not part of Arabia. We have History of the Levant for the Levant, and History of Mesopotamia for Mesopotamia (including Akkad). This article is dedicated to the history of the Arabian peninsula, to the south of and not including the Fertile Crescent. dab (𒁳) 08:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The Akkadians and Ammuru were also Ancient Arabians. The Mesopotamian history page mentions their invasions into Egypt and Persia, Although they are not Egyptians or Medes. go delete that then.--Skatewalk 07:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ancient Arabia Denial group

Go propose for a name change for example, to Pre-Arabia or PreHistoric Arabia or whatever. --Vonones 01:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Whats wrong with Ancient Arabia? does is it say anywhere that it wrong to use the term Ancient Arabia. Just like ancient Egypt or ancient Mesopotamia or Ancient India. Every region in the world deserves to have its Ancient history article and not an article glued to the (jahiliyah). --Skatewalk 05:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

sigh, the problem is that "ancient" is a fuzzy term. There is no historical "ancient" period in Arabia, except for Yemen (Sabaeans). Arabia only enters the historical period in the centuries predating the rise of Islam, which in other parts of the world is the "early medieval" period. It makes sense to treat the period from the earliest sources to the 7th century together, hence "pre-Islamic" (8th century BC to 7th century AD). I am not saying "Ancient Arabia" isn't a term in use (27,000 google hits, as opposed to 40,000 for "Pre-Islamic"), but it is at the same time more restrictive and more ambiguous. The problem with your "Ancient Arabia" article was not so much the title as the content. Instead of actual history, you discussed early medieval Muslim genealogy, and kept unduly mixing that with your idea that the Akkadians are "Arabs". The Nabateans are not part of "Ancient Arabia" proper, since the Nabatean kingdom was not in Arabia, but on the border of Syria and Arabia. dab (𒁳) 08:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no historical "ancient" period in Arabia Are you kiddin me! Are you ignoring the facts screaming at you? Read the few lines below from the Holy Eurocentric Britannica, so you dont accuse me of being an Arabianist! (the last version of the article on wikipedia used the term Arabian instead of Arab), so we don't provoke the modern Anti-Arab vultures. The facts are already in other Encyclopaedias (including the Britannica). I am becoming curious (more than anything else) on how far can you go denying crystal clear facts! Read below;

  • The Amorites Entry in the Britannica[1]

At the beginning of the millennium, a large-scale migration of great tribal federations from Arabia resulted in the occupation of Babylonia proper, the mid-Euphrates region, and Syria-Palestine. They set up a mosaic of small kingdoms and rapidly assimilated the Sumero-Akkadian culture.

Almost all of the local kings in Babylonia (such as Hammurabi of Babylon) belonged to this stock. One capital was at Mari (modern Tall al-Hariri, Syria). Farther west, the political centre was Halab (Aleppo); in that area, as well as in Palestine, the newcomers were thoroughly mixed with the Hurrians. The region then called Amurru was northern Palestine, with its centre at Hazor, and the neighbouring Syrian desert.

In the dark age between about 1600 and about 1100 BC, the language of the Amorites disappeared from Babylonia and the mid-Euphrates; in Syria and Palestine, however, it became dominant. In Assyrian inscriptions from about 1100 BC, the term Amurru designated part of Syria and all of Phoenicia and Palestine but no longer referred to any specific kingdom, language, or population.


  • Don't tell me Arabia don't have an Ancient history. I never opposed Assyrianism before meeting Elias, but denying the history of Ancient Arabia is not acceptable and the more you try to hide it the more it shows. You cant re-write history. Arabia is still the only exclusively Semitic region in the world. And you can't Hijack the history of a region and attach to the political modern Arabism or other nationalistic BS, respect History, dont let your political faith make you deny history!--Skatewalk 07:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

none of this seems to explain why you keep removing the title "Ancient Arabia" for the section that does, in fact, discuss Ancient Arabia. And please stop discussing Mesopotamia. This article is about Arabia, not Mesopotamia. dab (𒁳) 07:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The Akkadians and Amorites/Amuru are Ancient Arabian groups. explain in simple English. WHY you dont want to mention them = ) ? --Skatewalk 07:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geography

The Arabian peninsula extends well into Syria South of Mesopotamia. and on the west The RedSea/Dead sea/ Jordan river/ Tiberias/Litani river which marks the Northwestern border. Dont confuse Ancient Arabia with political Arabian peninsula today. Its a Geographic term. Ancient Arabia is simply the region to the south of Mesopotamia.--Skatewalk 07:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, south of Mesopotamia and east of Syria/Canaan. There is no clear demarcation between Arabia and the Levant, the Syrian Desert sort of belongs to both. Oases in the Syrian desert, such as Palmyra or Petra are borderline cases. They clearly are part of the Levant, but they are of course the first to be affected by Arab influence. The ancient history of Arabia proper is the ancient history of Yemen and of the sites along the incense road (Mecca, Medina, Sanaa, Tayma; there is also ancient Magan (in Oman?)) I don't see why you don't work on improving coverage on these topics instead of spending time on pointless debates on talk. What is your problem with the article? It could be more detailed, to be sure. So help building it. dab (𒁳) 07:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Dab, I think I know where the Levant is!----------------------------->Look where your map wrote Mesopotamia!, regardless of how accurate the map is its still proves that:
  • The Levant and Mesopotamia overlap each other!
  • the Same applies to the levant, some parts of the Levant are parts of the Geographic Arabian peninsula!

You see what I mean?

  • Also the Akkadians and Ammuru/Amorites came from Arabia, so I dont know what are you trying to prove?
  • Yemen means South, South Arabia. WHere is North Arabia!--Skatewalk 07:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

sure, there is South Arabia and North Arabia. North Arabia blends into the Syrian Desert. Naturally, more "history" is happening in the fertile southern parts and along the trade routes. Not much "history" to report in the desert. The desert essentially serves as a mater gentium with lots of tribes migrating away from it and affecting the history of the regions outside Arabia. --dab (𒁳) 08:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

These migrations should be noted. These are historic events right?--Skatewalk 08:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Akkadians and Amorites in Ancient Arabia

The Akkadians 2400BC
The Akkadians 2400BC

The earliest known events in Arabian history are migrations from the peninsula into neighbouring areas [1]. Around 3500 BC, Semitic-speaking peoples of Akkadian origin migrated from their homeland in the Arabian peninsula into the valley of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in Mesopotamia, supplanted the Sumerians, and became the Mesopotamian Akkadians (see Akkadians)[2]. The Ammuru/Amorites is another group of Semites left Arabia around 2500 BC during the Early Bronze Age and settled along the Levant, mixing in with the local populations there. Some of these migrants became the Amorites and Canaanites of later times[3][4] Bernard Lewis mentions in his book The Arabs in History:

"According to this, Arabia was originally a land of great fertility and the first home of the Semitic peoples. Through the millennia it has been undergoing a process of steady desiccation, a drying up of wealth and waterways and a spread of the desert at the expense of the cultivable land. The declining productivity of the peninsula, together with the increase in the number of the inhabitants, led to a series of crises of overpopulation and consequently to a recurring cycle of invasions of the neighbouring countries by the Semitic peoples of the peninsula. It was these crises that carried the Assyrians, Aramaeans, Canaanites (including the Phoenicians and Hebrews), and finally the Arabs themselves into the Fertile Crescent."[5]

  1. ^ Philip Khuri Hitti (2002), History of the Arabs, Revised: 10th Edition
  2. ^ http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/AKKAD.HTM Washington State University; Akkadians Study
  3. ^ http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9007224/Amorites The Amorites migration from Arabia
  4. ^ http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9007224/Amorite The Amorites origin - Britannica
  5. ^ Bernard Lewis (2002), The Arabs in History, Oxford University Press, USA; 6New Ed edition, page 17


You just drew that map, didn't you. What is that supposed to prove? I am aware that there is one view that assumes the Proto-Semitic homeland is in Arabia. In fact, I myself think this is a likely hypothesis. It is still wrong to state "The Akkadians were in Arabia in 2400 BC", because there were no "Akkadians" in 2400 BC. All we can say is that there is a hypothesis that there was an early Semitic migration out of Arabia in the mid 3rd millenium. That's it. I agree your material may be cited, but you'll need to realize that (a) these are merely hypotheses, not accepted by everyone, and (b) this is about migrations out of Arabia, not the history of Arabia itself. --dab (𒁳) 08:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann, All history is made up of hypothesis. Just because I respect Mesopotamians feelings and I keep my hands away from Mesoptamian articles, that doesnt mean I can't bring all the lame theories of the Assyrians...etc. Thats not what I want or care about (You probably know this first hand). Afterall who is Assyrian!...Lets not go there.

  • I respect other cultures and I leave Mesopotamia to the Mesopotamians (you can delete the Amorites origin if you want, I just recently added it and you left the section twitched). Arabian history is what I do and what I am not going to neglect, simple as that. I dont have any political agenda or really give two fils about whats going on today. Keep that stuff for political articles (such as the identity articles). You 'tchange history. Arabia was west of Sumer. Thats Akkad/Aggad it was on the west because the Semitic breaches evidence came from the direction of Arabia and thats no hypothesis --Skatewalk

look, just stay on topic and cite reliable sources. I discussed Proto-Semitic homeland hypotheses at Proto-Semitic, and I know Arabia is a good candidate. We can just mention that and place a link to Proto-Semitic. If you are so much into early Semitic migrations, I suggest you contribute to Semitic peoples. dab (𒁳) 09:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

My main concern is persistant denial of the Akkadians and Ammuru Migrations out of Arabia. The Semitic languages is another subject, if you want to mention that Arabia is the only region in the world to be exclusively Semitic through history (opposed to Mesopotamia). then thats up to you. I really rather avoid editing anything about the Mesoptamians to avoid provoking the modern Assyrianists, Arameans...etc--Skatewalk 09:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

you don't seem to understand this. The Semitic languages have everything to do with this. The "Akkadians" and Amorites may have migrated out of Arabia. We do state this possibility. problem solved. dab (𒁳) 09:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
He sees what he wants to see. He doesn't have any academic sources stating for a fact, that Akkadians, Amorites, etcetera, were Arabs. He's equating Semite with Arab, based on what later became known as Arabia. It was not known as Arabia back then, and no ethnic group of people identified as Arabs at the time. At best, he's an extreme Arabist. At worst, he's an Arab revisionist. I can't believe he's still into his Arabization process on Wikipedia. What has it been, a month now? Please knock this off. It's getting ridiculous. — EliasAlucard|Talk 13:01 21 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
he's not saying they are "Arabs" at this point, he's saying they migrated out of Arabia, which is fair enough to state as a mainstream hypothesis. dab (𒁳) 11:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I can accept that. We most likely did migrate from the Arabian peninsula, but not as Arabs. — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:23 21 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
your perpetual fallacy. you didn't. Bronze Age Semitic tribes did. I doubt you can remember the 25th century BC. dab (𒁳) 12:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
"We" as in my ancestors. Oh of course, I'm not related to these people. I'm from Mars. Sorry dab. — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:10 21 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
yeah, "we" as in my ancestors came out of the ocean in the mid Carboniferous, 250 million years ago. We came down from the trees about 6 million years ago. Of course, "we" don't remember this, it was all reconstructed by paleologists. An ethnicity cannot be older than its collective memory. Assyrian collective memory at best reaches back to the 7th century BC, and that very dimly. Nobody knew about "Amorites" or "Akkadians" before the decipherment of cuneiform in the 19th century. dab (𒁳) 13:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
yeah, "we" as in my ancestors came out of the ocean in the mid Carboniferous, 250 million years ago. We came down from the trees about 6 million years ago. — Please stop, you just lost all of your credibility right there. Oh yeah, need I remind you, I think that Evolution is a funny joke. Look, I'm not denying that there is a very high likelihood that the Akkadians migrated from the Arabian peninsula. That is most likely the case. If he uses serious sources to corroborate this, I have no problems with it. Just don't ascribe an Arab identity to ancient non-Arabic, Semitic peoples, because none of them indentified as Arabians. That is all I'm saying. — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:32 21 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
bruahah, so you are a creationist on top of an ethnic nationalist? I am not surprised you have difficulty following a coherent argument then. Have fun. dab (𒁳) 14:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that Intelligent Design is pretty lame because it's psuedo-science. I don't subscribe to that crap. But yeah, I do believe God created mankind. As for the coherent argument, what is it that I am not following? I am listening to people who have studied us for a very long time, and I find their arguments, logical, and convincing, which is more than I can say about Aramaeanists and Arabists. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:00 21 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
whatever. The point remains that it is arbitrary to extend your "we" to Proto-Semitic but not to Seth or Homo habilis. dab (𒁳) 15:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The Evolution was created by the creator = )
  • I never thought the Assyrians came directly from Arabia. The Assyrians were always in Mesopotamia (maybe indirectly Via the Akkadians or Ammuru). And I gaveup on explainning to you the difference between Arabia and modern Arab!....sigh

SO the Punics in Crathge and Sicily who migrated out of ancient Lebanon are the same as modern Lebanese in your common sense? --Skatewalk 02:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Hello guys, I'm from Iraq and I'm sure Akkadian and Assyrians aren't Arab, read the book of "Iraq History" (تاريخ العراق). Mussav 23:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] progress

the article is shaping up well, thanks for your contributions Skatewalk. We still need to figure out the somewhat chaotic ToC, but first we have to get a stable sketch of the points to be treated here. The one major section here appears to be "Iron Age South Arabia", which should maybe be shortened since it has a main article Ancient history of Yemen. --dab (⁳) 14:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree on summarizing the iron age, we also have to add on the other (Northern iron age groups that were mentioned in Maeen inscriptions). I have very weak references on that subject so I do't think they are realiable enough. Many groups that settled between Sinai and Moab are closel related, but I rather avoid going into that category because they are closely related to Canaanite/Amorite migrations. (and the Hebrews "the Mesopotamian invaders").--Skatewalk 19:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note to Bernard Lewis

I saw this quote on Mr Bachman's page, accompanied by a query as to its context. From internal grounds I could see it was a reference to Hugo Winckler's theory in his Altorientalische Forschungen (1893-98), which had some vogue for its daring hypothesis that several key narratives of the Bible are better explained as late substitutions of Misri (Mizraim =Egypt) for Musri (identified in Babylonian texts as an area in northern Arabia), based on philological similarities. The implication was that the Hebrew narratives involving Egypt (and Kush) were late reworkings of an almost forgotten tradition that evolved from the proto-Semitic groups (habiru etc) issuing out of Northern Arabia. Musri is also used in northern-Syrian/Anatolian toponyms, and though I don't think Winckler made the point, this clearly lent itself to speculations that Abraham's varied wanderings, which took in the north, could be accounted for as reflections of an originally Arabian provenance. This is perhaps useless for this page, and probably, since I don't find many references to it these days, forgotten speculation. But I thought a note might clear up the apparent context of Lewis's passage. Regards Nishidani 20:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map

I like the idea of a map, and it does look appealing and I don't mean to belittle the work done on it. However, the location of almost every tribe on that map is incorrect (sometimes grossly so, as in Hanifa, Sulaym, and Kalb). Also, the caption says it describes the situation at the dawn of Islam, but the political boundaries seem to reflect the situation 2 or 3 centuries earlier. I'd like to remove it from the article temporarily until someone gets the chance to fix it. -- Slacker 08:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- Slacker (talk) 00:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)