The Syriac Origins of Koranic Text

FOOTNOTES:

{1  Confusingly enough, there were actually TWO cities named “Apame[i]a” at the time.  One was a Persian city in Mesopotamia, on the Euphrates River across from Seleucia (Zeugma); named after the wife of Persian Emperor, Seleucus of Nikator (Queen Apama).  The other was a Greco-Roman city on the Orontes River in Syria.  Note that what are now dubbed the “Garima” Gospels had also been composed using Syriac…though much earlier (probably during the 5th century), in an area of the Levant that the Arabs would later refer to as “Al-Sham” / “Hauran”.  While the Garima Gospels had originally been composed in Syriac, they were later rendered in the Ethiopic “Ge’ez” script (the Semitic script used in the Kingdom of Aksum) in Abyssinia–probably in the early 6th century.}

{2  The “Namara[h]” (alt. “Nimreh”) inscription used a variant of the Nabataean alphabet; and so was yet another reminder that Nabataean was a precursor to the Kufic script (see footnotes 3 and 67 below).  It was a commemoration of the Lakhmid king, Imru al-Qays ibn Amr (c. 328).  There are also several inscriptions at Bir Hima (near Najran) from the 5th and 6th centuries that used Old South Arabian (Sayhadic) script.  There is an inscription at the Ma’rib dam (at Sana’a) commemorating the Christian Himyarite ruler, Abraha al-Asram (from the 6th century) using Sabaean (Sabaic) script.  There are also inscriptions commemorating Caliph Mu’awiya found at the dam near Yathrib-cum-Medina, as well as at the dam near Ta’if.  Both were written in an early Kufic-like script.  (Mu’awiya ruled until 680; but those inscriptions probably date from the early 8th century.) Also note the Nabataean inscriptions on the Wadi dam and in the Shuaib Caves (Al-Bada’a) at Tabuk.  (Notable as well are the inscriptions at Al-Hasa in eastern Arabia.)  For more on the relevant archeology, see Yehuda D. Nevo’s “Ancient Arabic Inscriptions from the Negev”.}

{3  Regarding the derivation of Arabic SCRIPT from the Nabataean alphabet (via the Kufic script), an important point should be made.  Take the indigenous languages of societies A and B respectively.  It does not follow from the fact that A adopted the script of B that A’s language necessarily came from B’s language.  This is obvious from the myriad countries around the world that adopted the Roman alphabet to write languages which are not themselves Latin-based cultures (see footnote 4 below).  Orthographic adoption from an un-related language usually occurs due to the influence of B (as the dominant culture) over A (as the subordinate culture).  Thus the adoption is often the result of the former’s asymmetric power–as in cases of imperialism (see footnote 37 below).  This explains why Persians eventually adopted the quasi-Arabic “Farsi” script (rather than the Arabic-speaking world adopting Pahlavi).  And it is why (Islamized) Pakistanis eventually adopted the quasi-Arabic “Urdu” script in lieu of deva-Nagari (which was more associated with a Hindu heritage)…even though their tongue (Urdu) is simply a variant of Hindi.  In both of THOSE cases, it was a hegemonic Dar al-Islam exercising influence over a subordinated culture (primarily during the Mughal era) that accounted for the orthographic disjuncture with the indigenous tongue (see footnote 5 below).  Here’s the key difference: In the 7th century, the Nabataeans (who spoke a variant of Syriac) did NOT conquer the Mohammedans; the reverse happened.  YET…the script of CA was derived from the Nabataean alphabet.  The only explanation for this is that the liturgical language of the conquering people (the Mohammedans) had its roots in a language that was (also) spoken by the subjugated people.  That is: BOTH were part of the Syriac-speaking world.  Obviously, the language of the conquering people would not have been subordinated to their new subjects.  So this would have ONLY happened as it did if the conquerers were ALREADY using the language in question.  Only LATER did they create a distinct liturgical language (so as to assert a unique Ishmaelite identity, and thus emphasize the cultural contradistinction).  Note that this is not uncommon.  Several ancient scripts have been replaced by modern scripts–as with, say, the Orkhon script of the Turkic peoples of Eurasia and the Old Norse Runes of northern Europe (both supplanted by the Roman alphabet).}

{4  The two best-known examples are Turkish and Vietnamese.  The former Romanization was established pursuant to the fall of the Ottoman Empire–at the behest of Kemal Atatürk, who sought to emulate Occidental conventions (thereby bringing Turkey more in line with the Western World).  The latter Romanization was established pursuant to French colonialism in Indo-China–primarily due to the efforts of Jesuit missionaries who sought to bring Christianity to the region.  (The former was a willful adoption of a dominant culture so as to become more compatible with it; the latter was an imposition of the dominant culture onto the culture of the subalterns–indigenous people who were at the mercy of imperialistic forces seeking to promulgate an exogenous creed.)  Other examples include Indonesian and Malay “bahasa” (which formerly used the Pallava script) and Tagalog in the Philippines (which formerly used the Baybayin script).  Interestingly, the Afar people USED TO use Arabic script, but recently adopted the Roman alphabet in deference to Occidental predominance.}

{5  Other examples of Dar al-Islam exercising influence over the writing system of a native population is the use of the quasi-Arabic “Shah-mukhi” script by Punjabis (in lieu of Gur-mukhi), the quasi-Arabic “Jawi” script by Malays / Acehnese (in lieu of Pallava), and the quasi-Arabic “Wadaad” script by Somalis (in lieu of Ge’ez).  Most Berbers no longer use the “Tifinagh” script, opting instead for Arabic script pursuant to the influence of Islam on the Meghreb.}

{6  Note that Al-Fahridi’s other famed student was the founder of the Kufa school: Al-Kisa’i.  It is no wonder the Kufic script came to prominence, as this city seems to have been a center of liturgical activity for the burgeoning new creed.}

{7  How can we know if the originals were written in Syriac if the originals are long lost?  Because Al-Batriq HIMSELF explicitly admits this fact…IN THE BOOK. (!)  That a Muslim was still composing works in Syriac at this point is very telling.  For more on this, see footnote 8 below.}

{8  Note that Al-Bitriq’s texts were translations of Aristotle’s zoological musings.  Misleadingly, the “Book of Animals” is now often associated with Abu Uthman Amr ibn Bahr al-Kinani of Basra (a.k.a. “Al-Jahiz”), who’s redaction of the Greek work was done in the 9th century–probably in the newly-established liturgical language: CA.  Not coincidentally, the first REFERENCE TO the work was made by Al-Kindi of Kufa, also in the 9th century, also in CA.  Incidentally, Al-Kindi was one of the first scholars in the Muslim world to start translating Ancient Greek works into CA.  It is quite possible he was either translating them into Syriac as well…OR was even working off of not Greek, but extant Syriac manuscripts.  That he was the EARLIEST scribe to render Greek works in CA is very telling.  Before that, the only languages into which Ishmaelites would have been inclined to translate Greek text would have been Syriac and Persian.  Lo and behold: THAT is exactly what we find in the historical record.}

{9  The writings of famed 8th-century jurist, Abu Hanifa [al-Numan ibn Thabit] of Kufa would have been originally written in Syriac.  There is also evidence that the works of 9th-century Maliki jurist, Asad ibn al-Furat were originally written in Syriac.}

{10  Golden dinars with Syriac (i.e. Kufic) inscriptions were used by the Umayyads–beginning with Caliph Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan at the end of the 7th century.  Coins continued to exhibit such writing through the 10th century–most notably by the early Fatimids (as with the caliph, Al-Mu’izz).  This would have made no sense had CA been the preeminent language–or the official script–of Dar al-Islam.}

{11 Another chronicler at the time was Ahmad ibn Yayha “al-Baladhuri” of Baghdad, who was loyal to the Abbasid caliphate.  He was known for his “Kitab Futuh al-Buldan” [Book of the Conquests of Lands].}

{12  Al-Dabbi’s mentor was the Arab philologist, Abu Amr ibn al-Ala of Basra…who was, in turn, a student of Ibn Abi Ishaq of Hadram.  It is Ibn Abi Ishaq (not to be confused with the famous historian, Ibn Ishaq) who is purported to have been the first grammarian of (the still-developing) CA.  He was commissioned by Caliph Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan to systemize the new language c. 700.  That was around the time the inscription on the Dome of the Rock was made (i.e. the last decade of the 7th century).  There are no remaining copies of what Ibn Abi Ishaq wrote; yet his work would have surely provided insight into the genesis of CA at its earliest stage; as it would have occurred in an environment the lingua franca of which was Syriac.}

{13  Syriac was not the only language in Dar al-Islam that predated CA.  There was also Middle Persian (i.e. Pahlavi).  Note, for example, the 10th-century writer, Abu Abd Allah Jafar ibn Muhammad al-Rudhaki, who composed an epic poem about the legendary romance between Qais ibn Al-Mulawah (a.k.a. “Majnun”) and Layla Al-Aamiriya…which was itself from the 7th century.  Here’s the kicker: Even by the 12th century, this love-story had not yet been rendered in CA.  Evidence for this fact is the version of the tale by Persian poet, Jamal ad-Din Abu Muhammad Ilyas ibn Yusuf ibn Zakki of Ganja (a.k.a. “Nizami Ganjavi”).  It was not until even later that a CA version finally appeared.}

{14  The inscription on the Dome of the Rock is often touted as proof that CA existed during the 7th century.  This is unsurprising, as it is THE FIRST instance of a script having emerged from Syriac with a distinctly Arab style.  However, there are several problems with this contention.  First, even if the stories are true (a big “if”), it would have been inscribed during the LAST DECADE of the 7th century.  (Note: It was during the same decade that the “kan-bun” style of writing was established in Japan: The first step in the divergence of Nihon-go from Chinese to become a distinct language.)  Second, the writing used in this inscription is quite crude; and is–in fact–NOT quite the same as the fully-developed CA script.  Third, it is an isolated case; and is certainly not indicative of widespread usage.  This may well have been the INAUGURAL usage of the (still-developing) script; which would thereafter be limited to liturgical material and other sacred contexts.  It would have still been quite some time until it became a lingua franca for the Arabs.}

{15  Note that the Persian writer, Rozbih pur-i Dadoe of Firuzabad [Fars] (popularly known in Islamic historiography as “Ibn al-Muqaffa”) would have written in Pahlavi and/or Syriac.  (See footnote 13 above.)  Not only is he known for having written the aforesaid adaptation of “Kalila and Dimna”; he composed a version of the Sassanian “Khwaday-Namag” [Book of Kings] as well.  He is also known for a tract on Sassanian court society (which was later referred to in Arabic as the “Adab al-Kabir”).  All his writings were eventually rendered in CA.  It was then (erroneously) assumed that those works had been in CA all along.  They weren’t; and it is no mystery WHY they weren’t.}

{16  The Aramaic term was itself derived from Akkadian.  The appellation likely emerged in Abrahamic lore during the Exilic Period, as “Nabu” was the Babylonian deity of scribes and wisdom.  Bear in mind that the Torah was originally composed in Babylonian Aramaic.}

{17  It also seems that there are certain Koranic terms that can only be understood accurately (i.e. as INITIALLY used) in their original (Syrio-Aramaic) incarnation.  There are numerous examples of this.  In Surah 2, there is “ra’ina” (ayat 47 and 105) and “wasatan” (ayah 144).  In Surah 25, there is “riss” (ayah 39).  In Surah 20, there is “samiri” (ayah 86).  And in Surah 83, there is “kalalat” and “sijjin” (ayah 9), “iliyyun” (ayah 20), and “tasnim” (ayah 28).  Such terms are discursively awkward and/or hermeneutically vague.  Other lexemes can have alternate meanings in CA–as with “ukhfi”, which could mean “to hide” or “to make manifest” (a confusion that would not exist in Syriac).  For more on this matter, see Arthur Jeffery’s 1938 “The Foreign Vocabulary of the Qur’an”; as well as Emran el-Badawi’s “The Qur’an and the Aramaic Gospel Traditions” (part of the Routledge Studies series).}

{18  The Syriac moniker for the Abrahamic deity was, in turn, a variant of the Aramaic “El” / “El[o]ah” / “Elah[a]” (in contradistinction to the Greek “Kyrios” / “Theos” and the alternate Semitic “Yah-weh” / “Jehovah”).  The Ishmaelites’ apparent heedlessness of the chosen moniker’s etymology is demonstrated by their onomastic for the prophet, Elias / Elijah.  That name was originally El-i-Yah[-u]; yet it is rendered “Ilya[s]” in Arabic; thereby eliding its etymological origins (ref. 37:123-132 in the Koran).  Otherwise, there would be evidence that the original name for the Abrahamic deity: “El is Yah-weh”.  A similar elision occurred with the Arabic onomastic for Jesus, “Issa”…which was a variant of the Syriac, “Isho”…which was, in turn, derived from the Aramaic “Yah-u-Shua” (alt. “Yeho-Shua”; later rendered “Yeshua”): “Cry out for Yah-weh”.  Once “Allah” was reified as a proper name, it was necessary to obfuscate the fact that “Yah-weh” had preceded it.  It is likely that the early Mohammedans referred to the godhead as “Allah” simply because that was a term often used for the supreme deity of the Kaaba: the moon god worshipped by many of the (pre-Islamic) pagans of Mecca.  For some (though not all), “Allah” might have been just another appellation for “Hubal”–chief among the pagan gods in the Hijaz.  Meanwhile, some of the inhabitants of the region may have also referred to the deity as “eloah”, since Syriac was the medium for the emerging Ishmaelite articulation of extant Abrahamic liturgy.  (See footnote 19 below.)  The first Mohammedans may have also adopted the moniker for the godhead by the Abrahamic peoples of southern Arabia: “The Merciful” (“Ra[c]hma”; rendered “Ra[c]him”).  In any case, some variation on the Semitic moniker “Allah” was commonly used for the moon-god (i.e. high god) by the Quraysh (i.e. the tribe into which MoM was born).  It was ALSO used by the Tanukhids and the Lakhmids…and Lihyanites / Dedanites long before that.  It was even by Sabaeans (in southern Arabia).  So it is not surprising that MoM decided to co-opt this particular appellation into his newfangled theology.  For more on this, see footnote 19 below.}

{19  By appropriating a term with which denizens of the Hijaz were already familiar, MoM–or, as the case may have been, later impresarios of the new Ishmaelite Faith–could assign the Abrahamic deity a moniker that resonated with the target audience (thus effectively re-labeling “Yahweh” to comport with a more familiar idiom).  Hence the Mohammedans embraced the SYRIAC (rather than distinctly Judaic) moniker, thereby making an (onomastic) contradistinction between the newfangled (Ishmaelite) monotheism and its Abrahamic antecedents.  MoM could have then made the case that he was not depriving the pagans of their supreme god, but only asking that they eschew all the OTHER gods in the pantheon–thereby rendering their polytheism a monotheism. Ergo the Shahada: “There is no other god but god” (a nod to the heno-theistic Hebrew commandment: “You shall recognize no other god’s before me”…which was interestingly NOT, “There do not exist any gods other than me”).  In this way, the Mohammedan stratagem hit two birds with one stone.  Aside from designating himself as the anointed spokesperson, MoM was only left with the task of making the case that this supreme god of the Kaaba (theretofore a moon god) was the same god that the Jews and Christians had been worshipping for centuries.  Via a syncretic sleight-of-hand, the aspiring prophet could persuade people that “Allah” should henceforth be associated explicitly with the Abrahamic deity.  (See footnote 18 above.)  Note that, being the highest deity, Hubal was the largest statue in the Kaaba.  21:58 corroborates this–as it specifies that MoM smashed all the idols in the Kaaba EXCEPT FOR the largest one (i.e. that of Hubal; a.k.a. “Eloah” in Syriac).  He did this so that the Meccans would be inclined to return to the Kaaba even under the auspices of the new Abrahamic Faith.  For, as far as they were concerned, THAT idol was the godhead (soon to be anointed “Allah”).  The point here is that the authors of the Koran were–naturally–working with what they had.  It is what they happened to have available to them AT THE TIME that determined WHAT they ended up asserting (and HOW they ended up asserting it).  The origins of the newfangled Mohammedan creed was, indeed, a matter of monolatry–a fact that is attested by the so-called “Satanic verses” incident.}

{20 Also reference the Codex Ambrosianus from c. 600 (that is: during MoM’s lifetime).  We should bear in mind the palpable influence that (Pahlavi) Zoroastrian scripture had on Mohammedan lore–namely: the “Book of Arda Viraf [the Righteous]”.  In my previous essay (“Syriac Source-Material For Islam’s Holy Book”), I discuss the connection of every one of these sources to Mohammedan lore.}

{21  Also notable are texts that, as it were, SKIPPED Syriac.  That is: Scripture that was originally written in Greek or in Coptic (during Late Antiquity), and appeared in the Middle East only when communities speaking EVEN MORE RECENT languages eventually emerged.  In such cases, it was much later (at some point in the Middle Ages) that some in the Middle East encountered the need to render certain material in CA.  This is exactly what occurred with the “Testament of Abraham”.  If CA was being used in Late Antiquity, then surely Syriac copies of this text would ALSO exist.  But they don’t.  Bear in mind that scripture was routinely being rendered in languages that were used AT THAT TIME across the Middle East.  And there were plenty of Arab peoples in pre-Islamic times who practiced Judaism and Christianity.  Therein lies the rub.  The Greek version of this arcane text was from the 2nd century A.D.  It was only MUCH LATER that it was finally translated by scribes who found the need to render it in younger languages: in new Slavonic (by Slavic Christians), in new Ethiopic (by the Jews of Beta Israel), and–sure enough–in medieval Arabic (by Arab Jews and Christians).  It stands to reason that the “Testament of Abraham” did not hold sway in Arab lands any earlier than it did, as it portrays Sarah and Isaac (rather than Hagar and Ishmael) in exalted fashion, while giving a starring role to the archangel Michael (rather than to Gabriel) in its recounting of Abraham’s exploits.  Be that as it may, as soon as Arabic had emerged as a lingua franca, it was inevitable that SOME would be moved to render it in that language.  Had CA existed prior to MoM’s ministry, then why wasn’t this text rendered in Arabic significantly earlier than it was?  The answer to the riddle lay in the fact that it was never rendered in SYRIAC, and so would have been unknown to those in Arab lands prior to the Middle Ages…at which point CA had been established.}

{22  During the late 8th / early 9th centuries, there were renown court “singers” like Mukhariq, Ishaq al-Mawsili, and Abu al-hasan Ali ibn Nafi (a.k.a. “Ziryab”), all of whom would have performed using Syriac.  The most attested court singers were those of Abbasid Caliph Harun al-Rashid.  Other poets of the time–like Abu al-Atahiya–would have also used Syriac.}

{23  Notice that most of this source-material pertains to JUDAIC lore, not to Christian lore.  We should bear in mind that much of the non-canonical (a.k.a. “apocryphal”) literature from Late Antiquity was not composed in Syriac; it primarily existed in Koine Greek…along with some Coptic texts from Egypt (as with the Garima Gospels) and various Mishnaic Hebrew texts from the Talmudic academies in Mesopotamia (composed in Babylonian Aramaic and ITS derivative, Classical Hebrew).  When it DID come to Christian lore, it was primarily Nestorian sources–and a panoply of apocrypha–to which the earliest Mohammedans would have been exposed; NOT the canonical texts with which Occidental Christendom is now familiar.  In addition to the non-canonical “Gospels”… (those of the Ebionites, the Nazarenes, the Savior, Thomas, Judas, Mary, Peter, James, Philip, Truth, and all the rest), there was a plethora quasi-Christian material (much of it Gnostic) that was not included in the official “Nicene” canon.  The key point is that these texts are seldom discussed outside of the Coptic and Eastern (Syriac) churches.  Indeed, much of the time, the existence of such material is not even acknowledged in the Occident!  So it is unsurprising that it rarely occurs to Islamic scholars to connect Mohammedan lore to these (systematically suppressed) sources.  For more on this phenomenon (in a Christian context), see Bart Ehrman’s landmark work: “Lost Christianities”.}

{24  For a full adumbration of Middle Persian loan-words used in Islam’s holy book, see Johnny Cheung’s “On The Iranian Borrowings In Qur’anic Arabic”.  For more on other loan-words in Islam’s holy book, see Arthur Jeffery’s “The Foreign Vocabulary of the Quran” (1938).}

{25  Unsurprisingly, the House of Saud kept this site off-limits to scholars until just recently.  It’s no wonder why.  It is clear evidence that CA’s origins lay not in what Mohammedan lore claims it to be, but elsewhere.  The House of Saud in particular has a lot to hide, given that it is the custodian of sites that play the most auspicious role in Mohammedan historiography.  Alas.  Honest archeologists in Arabia are about as hard to find as zamboni drivers in the Hindu Kush or bacon vendors in Tehran.  We’ve seen how religious fundamentalism treats archeological treasures with Daesh in Nineveh and Palmyra (and, before that, with the Taliban in Afghanistan): If it does not suit their purposes, it shouldn’t exist.}

{26  Instances of lexical co-optation in the Dark Ages are not to be confused with more recent loanwords from Persian during medieval times.  After all, Persian was the literary language of the Ottoman Empire.  So while some Turkic words ended up in the Farsi vernacular (“thank you”, for example…before that was transplanted by the French “merci”), many Persian words ended up in medieval Arabic: “sandal”, “turban”, “caravan”, “k[h]aftan”, “taffeta”, “dervish”, “bazaar”, “pasha”, “taj”, “gharafa” (carafe, from “karaba”), “farsakh” (a unit if length, from “parsang”), “kandi” (sugar), “limun” (lemon), “naranj” (orange), “bab[a]gha” (parrot), “azure”, “yasmin”, and “za[r]faran” (saffron).  The term for the region known as “Anbar” is the PERSIAN name.  Due to commerce along the Silk Road, modern Arabic even picked up some Chinese terms–as with “satin”.  (See also footnote 29.)  Interestingly “kabab” / “kebab” has its basis in Old Aramaic (Assyrian / Akkadian), so could have come from either Persian or Syriac.  Be that as it may, the preponderance of Koranic terms have a Syriac basis.}

{28  In the Koran, Jonah is alternately dubbed “Sahib al-Hut” [Man of the fish]; again, a failure to refer to him by his proper name.  The fact that there are TWO passages that refer to Jonah in such an oblique way (effectively: “the man the tales of whom involve a fish”), and yet do so DIFFERENTLY, indicates that he was ONLY known amongst the early Mohammedans (i.e. composers of the “Recitations”) as, well, “man of the fish”.  Moreover, it indicates that the Koran incorporated the two passages from two different sources–composed by authors whose knowledge of Jonah’s identity was similarly limited.  Only much later did Jonah come to be referred to as “Yunus” (in Arabic).  Just as the authors of the Koran seem not to know the proper name of this auspicious figure, they also seem not to know the proper name of Alexander of Macedon (instead dubbing him “Dhul-Qarnayn”; one with horns) NOR of the Abrahamic prophet, Ezekiel (instead dubbing him “Dhul-Kifl” in 21:85 and 38:48).  Such senescence is very telling.  The convention “one with X” [“Dhul-X”] is used for Jonah (“Dhul-Nun”), Ezekiel (“Dhul-Kifl”), and Alexander the Great (“Dhul-Qarnayn”); but these are not the only instances of oddly vague monikers.  There are also references to various INEXPLICABLE figures–as with “al-Khidr” in 18:60-82.  One presume that an omniscient super-being would have foreseen this infelicitous eventuality.  In other words: It would have occurred to the putative author of the Koran (the Abrahamic deity himself) that–in later eras–nobody would know who the heck he was talking about.  Alas, prescience is not one of the defining features of Koranic text, or of its authors.}

{29  Meanwhile, the Mohammedan re-naming of “Azazel” (as “Iblis”) seems to have come from the Koine Greek “diabolos”.  (Strange how the name of the fallen angel in Mohammedan lore was derived from the liturgical language of the Byzantines.)  Again, we see what happens when transmission is primarily ORAL: morphology undergoes various mutations…and picks up memes from un-expected places.  Memetic accretion rarely includes an account of each meme’s actual origins.}

{30  He proselytized at the same monastery (“Beth Abe”) as the famous Nestorian monk, John of Daylam from the late 7th / early 8th century.}

{31  For more on this topic, see Fred M. Donner’s “Narratives of Islamic Origins: The Beginnings of Islamic Historical Writing”.  Also see the work of German scholar, K.H. Ohlig.}

{32  Such nomenclature is in keeping with the Semitic names of other prominent arch-angels: “Gabr-i-El” / “Uzz-i-El” [strength of god], “Ram-i-El” [thunder of god], “Ur-i-El” [light / fire of god], “Sar-i-El” [prince of god], “Mik[h]a-El” [who is like god], “Azra-El” [god helps], and “Rafa-El” [god heals].}

{33  Surely, many of the technical mistakes made in the Koran (regarding the natural sciences) were reflections of dogmas that proliferated in the Middle East during Late Antiquity…and on through the Dark Ages.  In the Final Revelation to mankind, it seems that the Creator of the Universe was only able to avail himself of the woefully inadequate vernacular of those who first proffered the material.  To wit: He was–embarrassingly–limited to the narrowly circumscribed understanding (read: the profound nescience) of Bedouins from the Dark Ages: embryos as blood-clots, the sky as a dome miraculously suspended over a flat Earth, geocentric tropes, and all the rest.}

{34  Such phonetic mimicry is comparable to the name given to the trumpet-blowing angel in Islamic lore: “Israfil”, which was likely a phonetically-tweaked version of “Rafa-El” (i.e. “Raphael”).  (See also footnote 29 above.)  Such an onomastic discrepancy is exactly what one would expect in a process of oral transmission, where the original semiotics was not understood by those transmitting the folklore based sheerly on morphology.}

{35  If such religious apologists were GENUINELY confident in the veracity of their convictions, they would wholeheartedly welcome such well-intentioned queries.  The very fact that such discussion is verboten (in so many religious circles) reveals that a house of cards is being protected.  We find the same mandate-of-secrecy when ANY cult activity is afoot.  My mild-mannered Saudi interlocutor would almost certainly have an aneurysm were he to read the present essay.  For the entire dogmatic edifice on which he has based his esteemed career would be thrown into upheaval.  Consequently, we find ourselves navigating a petrified latticework of sacrosanct propositions (rigged with a byzantine network of ultra-sensitive trip-wires, each connected to an array of detonators).  Sycophants only survive by living in a mine-field of their own making; knowing that few who stray from the assigned script will manage to make it far onto the hallowed ground. (See footnote 41 below.)}

{36  Reference his “Syriac Influence On The Style Of The Koran” in the Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 11; 1927.}

{37  Historically, the sole exception to this rule seems to have been the Assyrians’ adoption of the language of the Aramaeans (Aramaic), even though it was the former who conquered the latter.  However, the mystery is solved once we realize that the language of the Assyrians was itself influenced by Old Aramaic (from the time it was adopted by the Akkadians in the 9th century B.C.; who had previously spoken Sumerian and used cuneiform).  Hence it was not a matter of the conquerers deciding to adopt the language of the subjugated peoples.  For the Assyrians, it was a natural progression to Aramaic; hence the emergence of what came to be called “Babylonian Aramaic”.  When the Achaemenids–who spoke Old Persian–eventually conquered Babylonia, it was for purely pragmatic reasons that they opted to incorporate (what came to be) “Imperial Aramaic” into their repertoire.  For (Parthian) Persians, this ended up being the basis for Avestan (which used Pahlavi, a script derived from the Aramaic alphabet).  Pahlavi continued to be used by the Sassanians, who spoke “Middle Persian”.  It was Middle Persian, NOT CA, that was used as the literary language of the Ottomans.}

{38  As far as other examples from before c. 800 go, a few parcels of text have been discovered–though they have been assigned suspiciously dubious provenance (as with, say, the manuscript housed at the University of Tübingen).  NONE of them are in CA.  As with the others listed here, they were all written in either Kufic or “Ma’il” script, and they are significantly fragmented.  It might also be noted that even by c. 900, Korans were STILL being rendered in Kufic–as with the “Mushaf al-Azraq” (the Blue Koran), rendered by the Fatimids at the Great Mosque of Kairouan in Tunisia; which, as mentioned earlier, ended up across the Mediterranean in Cordoba.  It is only by the 10th century that Korans started to be consistently rendered in CA.}

{39  During the Middle Ages, the disappearance of Syriac originals was not unheard of.  It happened in various other contexts.  Take, for example, the “Chronica Byzantia-Arabica” and its sequel, the “Continuatio Byzantia-Arabica” (a.k.a. the “Chronicle of 741”).  The latter was written by a pro-Ummayad author in the final year of Byzantine Emperor Leo III’s reign, yet seems to have been based on antecedent Syriac material.  This makes perfect sense, as the author only rendered the sequel in Latin after the Byzantines defeated Umayyad Caliph Hisham ibn Abd al-Malik’s invading forces c. 741…when the Ishmaelites were likely still using Syriac.  In other words, he culled his information about the Umayyads from SYRIAC sources, which would have only made sense if THAT had been the language used by the Umayyads.  Interestingly, this is document in which the moniker, “Makkah” is used for the first time.}

{40 The Apocalypse of pseudo-Methodius was originally composed in Syriac at the end of the 7th century.  Tellingly, it referred to the Arabs as “Ishmaelites” rather than as “Muslims”.  No religion called “Islam” is mentioned.  No holy book is mentioned.  This was also the case with Athanasius Gammolo’s “Kataba d-Res Melle” [Book of World History]: one of the best documentations of the conquests by the Arabs during the 7th century.  (Yes: that was written in Syriac as well.)  Gammolo makes no mention of a holy book used by the Ishmaelites…nor of any text that had been composed in a distinctly Arabic language.}

{41  Religious apologists are content to bask in intoxicating dogmatic quagmires; even as the rest of us are forced to trudge through them.  For unscrupulous interlocutors, the idea is to ensure uncharted territory remains off-limits to EVERYONE, FOREVER.  All the while, they vociferously cling to whatever claims suit the sanctified narrative–no matter how unfounded those claims might be.  Their convictions are rooted not in evidence, but in allegiance.  (Biases evade awareness, and do so indefinitely; as biases rarely announce themselves as biases.)  By contrast, those of us who prize perspicacity are obliged to enter into any critical inquiry with a hefty dose of DIS-confirmation bias.  That is: We bend over backwards to find any and all evidence that might disprove whatever theory is being proposed.  Short trying to find a reason to jettison that theory, we are doing ourselves a grave disservice.  Hence we must ask: “What, exactly, would conclusively disprove this thesis?”  After answering this question to the best of our ability, we go out of our way to find whatever that thing might be.  If we have not managed to find it after a diligent search, we can then–and ONLY then–claim the theory to be worth anyone’s consideration.  “Here’s the theory; and here’s how one would go about disproving it.  Even after a concerted effort, I have STILL not managed to disprove it.  But please–by all means–feel free to take a crack at it yourself.”}

{42  Throughout history, it has been common to coin a NOVEL language as a SACRED language in the event that a new Faith is established.  Indeed, that’s precisely what the Eastern Orthodox Church did with Old Church Slavonic when votaries in Slavic lands wanted to use something in lieu of Koine Greek.  The idea is to pretend that the liturgical language is timeless–and even has magical properties–in spite of the fact that it is derivative.  Mandaeans (a.k.a. “Sabians”) did so with the Mandaic dialect of Aramaic…while Manicheans did so with the Uyghur variant of Syriac (both of which exhibit significant Persian influences).  Yazidis use the Kurmanji dialect of Kurdish…as opposed to the practitioners of Yarsanism, who use the Gorani dialect of Kurdish.  Zoroastrians did so with Avestan (descended from Old Iranian)…even as Persians use the Pahlavi script (descended from Old Aramaic) while Indians use the Gujarati script (descended from Sanskrit).  Tengri-ists did so with Mongolian (descended from Syriac via Old Uyghur and Altaic influences).  Even as Vedic Sanskrit is the original language of the region, Jains use the “Ardha-Magadhi” Prakrit, Sinhalese Buddhists use the “Elu” Prakrit, and Theravada Buddhists use the “Pali” Prakrit.  Sikhs did so with the Lahnda dialect of Punjabi, which is also descended from Sanskrit.  Tibetan Buddhists use the Ali Gali dialect of Old Tibetan while practitioners of Bon use the Zhang-Zhung dialect of Old Tibetan.  Japanese Buddhists use the Man’yogana script, which is descended from Classical Chinese.  Rarely is the liturgical language the ORIGINAL language.  Perhaps the only two examples are non-Tamil Hindus (who still use Vedic Sanskrit) and Chinese Buddhists (who still use Classical Chinese).  Of course, even Vedic Sanskrit was descended from Old Brahmi…which was based on Old Aramaic.}

{43  Note that other scripts–notably, the Ethiopic language, Ge’ez–shared the same Sinaitic origins as these Old South Arabian scripts.  Consequently, Ge’ez shared many attributes with Old South Arabian.  (Put another way: Old South Arabian was written in what was essentially a cousin of early Ethiopic script.)  This makes sense, as the Aksumites encompassed both Abyssinia and Yemen, making linguistic hybridization between the African Horn and southern Arabia inevitable.  It was not until c. 960, when the (Christian) Kingdom of Aksum was conquered by the pagan Queen [n]Gudi[t], that the use of Ge’ez declined in Abyssinia.  [n]Gudi[t] had virtually all the literature in the kingdom destroyed, as she was vehemently anti-Christian.  As it happened, she allied herself with the Islamic Adal Sultanate (operating out of Zeila, Somalia), which–even by that time–was STILL not using CA.  (Vestiges of Ge’ez survive in modern Ethiopic languages like Amharic, Tigre, Tigrinya, Oromo, Gurage, Chaha, and Argobba.)  It was not until the 13th century that an Arabic adaptation of the region’s indigenous (Cushitic) languages was finally established: “Wadaad”.  This timeline would not make any sense if CA had predominated in Dar al-Islam since MoM’s lifetime.}

{44  Similarly, in Malaysia / Indonesia, the national language is simply called “language” [“bahasa”].  Syriac (in its modern vernacular) is NOW referred to as “Leshana Suryaya” / “Leshana Ashuraya” [Syrian / Assyrian language] or “Suret” / “Surayt”; and alternately as “Siryon”.  By contrast, Hebrew was a language as well as a people–as has been the case with MOST languages (which tend to be named after the people who speak them).  Manichaean and Mandaean were religions as well as languages.  Chaldean was a religion, a language, AND a people.  The Eastern / Nestorian Christian church came to be affiliated with its liturgical language–hence the moniker, “Syriac Christianity”.  Lastly, we might note that “arabiy[y]ah” could alternately be translated as “Arabia”; since other places followed this nomenclature (e.g. “Ifriqiy[y]ah” for Africa).}

{45  A “munajat” is a special kind of “salat” [prayer] (typically referred to as “dhikr” / “zikir” in the Sufi tradition).  It is primarily a matter of pleading to god by uttering his various appellations.  The title of Al-Ansari’s book is sometimes rendered in English as “Dialogues With God”; though “munajat” are hardly dialogues; they are invocations / imprecations.}

{46  There has been some dispute as to the dating of this material; as alternate tests have placed their origin in the late 6th century. (!)  But this only makes the problem WORSE.  If we are to accept the earlier dating, the (Kufic) Birmingham folios are rendered the most glaring evidence against Islamic revisionism.  For they include clauses that are found in the Koran; but date to BEFORE MoM’s ministry.  This means that certain bits of Syriac verse pre-dated the (purported) “Final Revelation”, and were only later appropriated by those compiling the “Recitations”.  That segments of text from the late 6th century eventually wound up in Islam’s holy book would mean that the book did not get its material from the alleged source (a messenger in the early 7th century).  In that case, the corpus of revelations that MoM reputedly received during his lifetime were not unique after all.  Put another way: The fact that pre-existing material was coopted into the newfangled (Mohammedan) scripture would entail that the traditional attribution (novel communiques from the Creator of the Universe conveyed exclusively via MoM) is false.}

{47  Malcom Lyons explains the clues to this retroactive transformation in his “The Arabian Epic: Heroic and Oral Story-Telling” vol. 1.}

{48  Peoples at the southern end of the Arabian peninsula (Himyarites, who operated out of Zafar and Sana’a) were considered off-shoots of the Abyssinians (Sabaeans, then Aksumites; who were Ethiopic); and were not referred to as “Arabs” at the time.  For more on the association of Arab peoples with (Syriac-speaking) Nabataeans, and the etymology of “Arab” / “Arabia”, see the discussion in my essay: “Mecca And Its Cube”.}

{49  Abu Tammam’s hometown, Jasim had previously been a (Syriac-speaking) Ghassanid city that had served as a seat for the (monophysite) Syriac church.  This indicates that Syriac would have been his native tongue.}

{50  There are miscellaneous idiosyncrasies when it comes to transliterating Arabic.  (Anyone who doubts this can refer to the myriad spellings of the name of the former Libyan dictator.)  The issue here is the elision of disparate lemmas.  As with many derivatives of Semitic abjads, the inference of vowel sounds sometimes leaves room for confusion.  With regard to “salam” vs. “salaam”, we encounter a similar issue with “haram” (forbidden) and “hara[a]m” (holy), both of which derive from the Semitic tri-root “H-R-M” (set apart).  In both cases, when transliterating the second vowel sound, the phonetic distinction is made by simply writing “a” in the first instance and either “ā” or “aa” in the second instance.  So it goes with the hermeneutics of “S-L-M”.  In CA, this equivocal phonology was—eventually—addressed by the use of diacritical marks.  But when it comes to prosody and gutturals, the Roman alphabet doesn’t always cooperate.  (And navigating the IPA only adds to the confusion.)  Consider the queer alphabetic modifications used in Turkish and Vietnamese.  Glitches in transliteration are commonplace—as is the case when moving from, say, (Korean) Hangul to the Roman alphabet, or when dealing with the Romanization of Chinese phonetics (Pinyin, Wade-Giles, Zhu-yin, Guo-yu Luomazi, etc.)  When it comes to Syriac, we can’t even agree on the difference between “sh” and “ṣ” and “š” and “ś”.  But one thing that IS indubitable: “Islam” and “Muslim” are a matter of submission…just as we can be sure that “as-sala[a]m-u alayk-um” is a greeting of peace.}

{51  The possibility of a palimpsest (where one thing was written on the parchment at one point in time, then was erased and replaced by something else at later point in time) was ruled out; though we hear this from those who performed the mis-leading carbon dating.  In determining when the Birmingham codex was ACTUALLY composed, step #1 would be to carbon-date the ink.  They might then ascertain how long the tannin (the compound extracted from galls) may have been stored after the death of the plant from which it was made.  Medieval Arabs seem to have mostly used dye made from the gall found on oak trees in northern Syria (near Aleppo and Antioch).}

{52  In eastern Europe, the (soon-to-be Eastern Orthodox) Byzantines were in control of the Balkans, Greece, and Anatolia.  In western Europe, the (Chalcedonian / Arian) Visigoths controlled the Iberian Peninsula, while the (Roman Catholic) Franks controlled the Rhineland, Gaul, and the Italic peninsula.  The Byzantines were Papist until the Great Schism of 1054.  Of course, other Christian denominations have existed since the 1st century.  The Coptic Church was primarily located in north-eastern Africa; while the Syriac (Eastern / Oriental) Church was primarily located in what we now call the Middle East (including the Nestorian and Chaldean churches).  By the early 8th century, both Coptic and Syriac Christianity existed in lands that had been incorporated into Dar al-Islam (meaning that many Copts and Assyrians ended up using Arabic as their lingua franca).  Eastern Europe retained Koine Greek, though eventually adopted Old Church Slavonic as a (Slavic) liturgical alternative; while Western Europe retained Vulgar Latin for its liturgical language amidst the ramification of the various Romance languages.}

{53  There are some instances where hair-splitting is warranted—as with Epic Sanskrit vs. Classical Sanskrit: essentially the same language, yet with some stylistic differences.}

{54  Islam is not alone on this count.  According to Jewish fundamentalists, Iron Age Hebrews (i.e. Jewish Canaanites) spoke—and wrote in—Hebrew.  This is, of course, pure farce.  (It is even a stretch to contend that a fully-codified Judaism existed prior to the Exilic Period.)  The first language that was distinctly “Hebrew” was Mishnaic Hebrew (the familiar square script that characterizes Biblical Hebrew, which dates from the 1st century A.D.) Mishnaic Hebrew descended from some combination of Babylonian Aramaic and Samaritan (both of which date back to the beginning of the 6th century B.C.).  Mishnaic Hebrew was not developed until the Middle Ages.  In an attempt to exalt their chosen liturgical language as “las[h]on ha-kodesh”, Judaic historiographers concocted terms like “Classical Hebrew” and (the nonsensical) “Samaritan Hebrew”; while retro-actively labeling Phoenician and Old Aramaic “paleo-Hebrew” (which would be like calling Vulgar Latin “paleo-Norman”).  The Jews of Classical Antiquity knew better. (I explore this point further in Footnote 67 below.)  The Mishnah Megillah refers to the language of the Hebrews (eventually dubbed “Ivrit”) as “Ashurit” (Assyrian); likely referring to Babylonian Aramaic; and indicating that the Hebrews did not have a distinctly Hebrew language.  Of course, any religion with a liturgical language is inclined to confabulate a fictional linguistic legacy.  And so it went with Islam vis a vis Classical Arabic.  Islamic apologists play the same ol’ taxonomic games—sometimes referring to Old North Arabian and even Nabataean Syriac as “Old Arabic”.  Presumably, they would also refer to Vedic Sanskrit as “Old Braj”.}

{55  The etymology of “Lukman” is somewhat of a quandary.  It might be based on the Semitic tri-root “K-M-N”, meaning “hidden in darkness”.  Thus “Al-K-M-N” could have meant “the dark one”.  This would make sense, as this folkloric figure was described as very dark-skinned.  And it would also explain a book that is referenced as “Hikmat al-K-M-N”—typically translated as “Luqman’s Wisdom”, but more accurately translated as “wisdom of the dark-skinned man”.  Luqman’s provenance is unclear, as Islamic texts cannot even agree on where he was from.  He was of the “Ad” tribe.  Or he was from “Al-Ahqaf” (place of the sand dunes; understood to be Yemen).  Or he was from “Aylah”.  Or he was from Ethiopia.  Or he was from Egypt.  Or he was from Nubia.  The path from Persian lore—through Syriac intermediaries—to Arabian lore seems to be the most likely genealogy of the tale.  We DO know that the Story of Sandbad the Sage—later rendered “Sinbad the Sailor” in the European adaptation—was translated from Pahlavi (Middle Persian) to Syriac in the pre-Islamic Middle East.  The name was eventually rendered in Arabic as “Sind[i]bad” in the 10th century (when it was adapted from Syriac sources).  It is likely that tales about Sandbad were inspired by the much earlier tale of Ahikar the Wise, which originally circulated in Aramaic, then in Persian and Syriac (see Footnote 56 below).  Tellingly, when the Byzantine writer, Michael Andreopoulos of Melitene translated the story of Sandbad into Greek (as Syntipas the Philosopher) in the 11th century, he did so from Syriac; not from Arabic.}

{56  The Story Of Ahikar the Wise is perhaps the oldest example of international literature, as the tale propagated from Nineveh (northwestern Mesopotamia), through the Levant, down to Elephantine island (northeastern Egypt), primarily through Syriac-speaking amanuenses—many of whom were Jewish.  The story is about a chancellor of the Assyrian king Sennacherib; followed by his heir, Esarhaddon.  The characters hail from the early 7th century B.C.  (The account is likely apocryphal.)  The eponymous hero of the famous tale is betrayed by his nephew, Nadab [alt. “Nadan”], for whom he had served as a mentor.  For his insolence, Nadab ends up reaping what he sowed.  As the tale propagated across cultures, it was re-written to comport with indigenous folklore—be it Zoroastrian, Jewish, Christian, Manichaean, or Mohammedan.  Its appeal was universal, as it was an inspiring account of a wise man and his unappreciative student.  The wider message is one of justice prevailing over treachery—a theme that would have surely resonated with anyone who heard it.  In the Abrahamic pantheon, Ahikar was a sage, not a prophet.  So his stature as a folk-hero was different from that of the “nabi-im”, who featured prominently in Hebrew scripture.  Meanwhile, as the tale propagated across Christendom, it continued to undergo a metamorphosis.  During the Middle Ages, “Ahikar” was Romanized as “Achicarus”, as the tale proliferated throughout the Holy Roman Empire.  By then, the true origins of the material were—glibly—long-forgotten.}

{57  I explore the specific circumstances in which the “Recitations” were compiled in my essay: “Genesis Of A Holy Book”.  There, I show how it is inconceivable that the book now known as “Al-Qur’an” is an exact replica of the verses conveyed orally by someone between c. 613 and c. 632.}

{58  For more on this topic, see S. H.  Griffith’s  “Disputes With Muslims In Syriac Christian Texts: From Patriarch John To Bar Hebraeus” in Religionsgespräche im Mittelalter, ed. B.  Lewis and F.  Niewöhner; 1992.}

{59  This work seems to have been related to the “Apocalypse Of Moses” (a.k.a. the “Life Of Adam And Eve”) from the 1st century A.D.—the oldest extant version of which exists only in Greek (though it would have originally been composed in Syriac).  This is considered one of the core texts of the “primary Adam” literature.  In it, Satan states that he rebelled against the Abrahamic deity when he was ordered to bow down to Adam—a motif that was adopted in Islamic theology.  “The Conflict Of Adam And Eve With Satan” was also likely related to the “Testament Of Adam” and the “Apocalypse Of Adam”—both of which are characterized as “Seth” literature (as they focused on Adam’s son).  These were also originally composed in Syriac (by Jewish scholars), and were later translated to Garshuni (Arabic using Syriac script), then into medieval Arabic…as well as into Greek…and even into Ge’ez, Armenian, and Georgian.  ALL of it had major influence on “The Cave Of Treasures”, which would have been composed (in Syriac) during MoM’s early lifetime.  Interestingly, Garshuni continued to be used by some through the 16th century.  Rarely did such material make it into Europe, which explains why these works were rarely translated into Latin…and remained largely unknown in the Occident.}

{60  Tellingly, non-Islamic material exists that REALLY WAS originally written in Arabic.  Of course, such works would have been composed no earlier than the 9th century.  Case in point: the “Apocalypse Of Peter”…alternately known as the “Ru’ya Butrus” [Vision Of Peter] or the “Kitab al-Magall” [Book Of Rolls]; which was composed in the late 9th / early 10th century, though it was retroactively attributed to Clement of Rome.  This is a reminder that, once Arabic had become the lingua franca, EVEN JEWS AND CHRISTIANS were writing material in Arabic.  Said transition is further testament to the fact that, when earlier works were written in Syriac, it was due to the fact that THERE WAS NOT YET ANY ARABIC.  Otherwise, such works would have surely been written in Arabic…as were the vast majority of works composed in the Muslim world from the 9th century onward.  For more on this, see the Postscript below.}

{61  The most famous example of this is the “Ktav Ashuri” [Assyrian script]: the familiar “square” script established by Jewish scribes in Late Antiquity (by the vaunted “Tanna-im”, likely at the behest of a “Nasi” of the Sanhedrin) to differentiate it from other Aramaic scripts of the region (Babylonian Aramaic, Samaritan, Palmyrene, Nabataean, etc.)  This script is now known as “Mishnaic Hebrew”…which is, effectively, Classical Hebrew.  (The “Ktav Ashuri” corresponded to the spoken “Leshon ha-Kham-im”; which was an offshoot of the Samaritan tongue.)  In an amusing parallel with Islamic revisionists, some Judaic revisionists like to fancy the “original” Hebrew to have pre-dated this development, thus pretending that their liturgical language (Classical Hebrew) had existed ALL ALONG.  (Ezra, insofar as he existed, would have spoken Babylonian Aramaic.)  So we see that this gimmick was not unique to Islam; and that delusion accompanies many a liturgical language.  (For more on liturgical languages, see Footnote 62 below.)}

{62  An even sillier variation of this gimmick occurred in Christendom, where it was supposed—throughout the Middle Ages—that the lingua franca of the west Roman Empire (Vulgar Latin) was the language in which god intended the entire Bible be rendered.  This belief remained unchallenged until Martin Luther in 1522.  CA was no anomaly; as there have been myriad liturgical languages created explicitly for the purpose of conveying a (new) sacred doctrine.  The phenomenon occurred in the Middle East many times: Aramit (a variation on Old Aramaic) for Samaritanism, the Manichaean version of Syriac for Manichaeanism, the Mandaic version of Syriac for Mandaeanism, the Hawrami dialect of Gorani (a variant of Kurdish) for Yarsanism, and Kurmanji (another variant of Kurdish) for Yazidism.  To differentiate themselves from Islam, subsequent Middle Eastern monotheisms employed later incarnations of Arabic: the Druze designed medieval Arabic as their liturgical language, while the Baha’i designated modern Arabic as theirs.  In each case, it was presumed that the Creator of the Universe wanted his message to mankind to be rendered in that particular language ALL ALONG.  The universe seems to have always been in sync with whatever was transpiring when THEIR OWN religion was founded.  This is a reminder that some sort of conceit undergirds virtually every sacred doctrine.  (And, as is usually the case, delusive thinking goes hand-in-hand with conceit.)  In the Far East, this seems to have worked a bit differently.  Preternatural qualities were ascribed to liturgical languages—as with, say, Vedic Sanskrit for Hinduism, the Ardha-Magadhi Prakrit for Jainism, the Elu Prakrit for Sinhalese Buddhism, and the Pali Prakrit for Siamese Buddhism.  We also find this with Ali Gali (a.k.a. “Galik”; a variant of Old Tibetan) for Tibetan Buddhism and Zhang-Zhung (another variant of Old Tibetan) for Bon.  Another notable case: the Lahnda dialect of Punjabi (a.k.a. “Lehndi”) is used as the liturgical language for Sikhism.}

{63  The “golden chain of narration” gets a bit sketchier from there.  Malik ibn Anas was purportedly the student of a Persian named Nafi Mawla ibn Omar of Daylam—who hailed from the southern coast of the [k]Hazar Sea (a.k.a. the Caspian Sea).  THAT Nafi evidently received the narration from the fabled “Nafi” of Medina…who, in actuality, was probably a Persian who hailed from Isfahan.  And HE was purported to have received the narration from the son of Caliph Umar ibn Khattab.  So once we get to Bukhari, over two centuries of “telephone” would have transpired; and, in the meantime, transitioned from Syriac to medieval Arabic.}

{64  Note that “Xenaias” (alternately rendered “Philo-Xenus”) was the Greco-Roman rendering of the Syriac name, Aksenaya.  The letter was likely composed by the Syriac bishop of Mabbug at the time (a.k.a. “Philoxenus of Hierapolis”), a Miaphysite who’d studied in Edessa (and took exception to the Dyophysites in the Nestorian church).  Incidentally, Hir[t]a—at the time, a small Lakhmid city just south of Kufa—came to be known as “Al-Hirah”.  Up to c. 241, the region had been ruled by the (Arab) Kingdom of Hatra (who were vassals of the Parthians)…before being taken over by the Lakhmids (who were vassals of the Sassanians).  The people of the region would have spoken Syriac.  (The dialect of Syriac used at Hatra is now referred to as “Ashurian” [“Leshana Ashuraya”], as it seems to have originated in Ashur, in Nineveh.)  Mingana’s translation was from a vellum manuscript found in Tur Abd-in (“Servant Hills”; a.k.a. “Osroene”), which had been ruled by the Abgarids (a Nabataean Syriac-speaking Arab dynasty) until the 3rd century.  They had spoken Ashurian.  That manuscript dated from between the 10th and 13th century; and had been based on a much earlier document.  The text now resides at the Selly Oak Colleges Library at Birmingham.}

{65  Vedic Sanskrit came from Old Brahmi, which was based on Old Aramaic, itself a descendent of Phoenician.  Koine Greek came from Mycenaean Greek, which descended from Phoenician as well (via a Hittite variant of Assyrian)…after interacting with the indigenous Minoan tongue.  Vulgar Latin ALSO came from Mycenaean Greek…after infusing the indigenous Sabine and Etruscan tongues of the Italic peninsula (yielding Old Latin).  Coptic script was based on Greek…after infusing the indigenous Egyptian Demotic.  And Glagolitic script (precursor to Cyrillic) was a Slavic script based on Greek as well.  It would make little sense to refer to the Phoenician alphabet as proto-Sanskrit, or proto-Greek, or proto-Latin, or proto-Coptic, or proto-Cyrillic…even though it was the ancestor of each.  The same goes for CA vis a vis Syro-Aramaic (which, by the way, also influenced Mandaic, Sogdian, Manichean, and—of course—modern Assyrian).  See also Footnotes 65 and 71 below.}

{66  The Egyptian dialect of Arabic (“Masri”) is the most common.  Even the Maghrebi dialect of Arabic (“Der[i]ja”) ended up having several variants: “Hassaniya” (Mauritanian), Moroccan, “Suleimitian” (Libyan), “Dziria” (Algerian), “Tounsi” (Tunisian), and “Hilalian”—all of which were influenced by Berber in some way.  The hybridization of Arabic continued through the High Middle Ages.  During the Moorish occupation of Andalusia, in a rare hybridization of Semitic and Romance languages, Maghrebi Arabic melded with Spanish—yielding “Mustarab” / “Mozarabic”.  (The only other language that merged Arabic and Latin was Maltese.)  For more on the ramification of Arabic, see the Appendix.}

{67  We should be wary of the linguistic conceit whereby a philological analysis of ancient languages in conducted through the lens of one’s own favored language (see Footnote 54 above).  The Namara[h] (alt. “Nimreh”) inscription was composed in the Nabataean dialect of Syriac, using the Nabataean alphabet c. 328 (see footnote 2 above).  This makes sense, as it was written by the Lakhmids—who were ethnic Nabataeans.  (Their capital was the Syriac-speaking city of Hir[t]a—later known as “Al-Hirah”—just south of Kufa.)  Calling that inscription “proto-Arabic” is like calling Phoenician “paleo-Hebrew”—as if the “Hebrew” was the language that Phoenician was destined to become.  “Paleo-Hebrew” / “proto-Hebrew” is, of course, an utterly inane term.  The Phoenician alphabet may just as well be considered proto-Greek. (See Footnote 65 above.)  All retro-active categorization schemes are spurious.  An analogy from evolutionary biology illustrates the point.  Imagine referring to the Boreo-eu-therian ancestor as “proto-human”.  While this is technically not wrong (it DID eventually give rise to—among thousands of other species—homo sapiens), such a characterization is tremendously misleading.  (The same animal also led to gerbils and whales.)  The Boreo-eu-therian ancestor could just as accurately be dubbed a proto-giraffe, enabling us to declare: “See! The giraffe has been around for over 100 million years!”  Shall we take a giraffe-centric approach to evolutionary biology?  (In theory, one COULD make zoology entirely about all mammals’ relation to giraffes.)  CA-fetishists aren’t the only people who play this silly game.  Hebrew-fetishists insist that the liturgical language of Judaism has been around since the time of King David, treating Old Aramaic as an “earlier version” of the square script (from the 1st century A.D.) with which many are now familiar.  (Hence they claim—absurdly—that the Gezer calendar and Ophel pithos—as well as the Siloam / Shiloah and the Shebna inscriptions—were written in “paleo-Hebrew”.)  Such legerdemain would be comical if it weren’t taken seriously by so many.  Ironically, the give-away is in the HEBREW name for the square script: “Ktav Ashuri” (meaning “Assyrian alphabet”).  Imagine Chaldean Christians today insisting that Turoyo (contemporary Suryoyo) has been in use since the Bronze Age due to the fact that modern Assyrian, which was from Classical Syriac, itself based on Aramaic, has existed ALL ALONG.  And so it goes with ALL linguistic ramification.  Noting that the Namara inscription uses a language that slightly resembles the language in which the Koran was written (almost four centuries later) does not mean that CA was already in use; it simply means that CA’s origins were in Nabataean Syriac…just as the giraffe’s origins were the Boreo-eu-therian ancestor.}

{68  Today, archeology is extremely limited in this region, as any research needs to pass muster with the (Wahhabi) House of Saud.  Operating within the stringent constraints of a totalitarian theocracy is not easy…that is, if one is a genuine scholar (read: not an apparatchik).  It is no secret that any excavation that might reveal unwelcome insights is promptly curtailed.  (Investigations in the region are typically limited to material that predates Late Antiquity; which remains outside the purview of Mohammedan origin stories.)  Nothing that might bring into question the traditional Islamic narrative is permitted.  This explains why there was a deafening silence after the extensive excavations around the Kaaba (in the first decade of the 21st century) to make way for the massive construction projects in Mecca.  Honest archeologists in Saudi Arabia are as unlikely as Zamboni drivers in the Congo.}

{69  Discontinuities in legacy often correlate with disjunctures in historiography.  A prime example of this is found in Mesopotamia: The neo-Babylonians did not consider themselves progeny of the Assyrians, who did not consider themselves progeny of the Kassites, who did not consider themselves progeny of the Old Babylonians, who did not consider themselves progeny of the Gutians, who did not consider themselves progeny of the Akkadians, who did not consider themselves progeny of the Sumerians.  They were, of course, ALL of the same haplo-group; but each had its own legacy to gild (and, of course, its own sacred history it wanted to tout).  As it turns out, other than the obvious (a shared geography), the only give-away that there was ancestral lineage was the continuity in linguistic metamorphosis—from Sumerian to Babylonian Aramaic, precursor to Hebrew.  The official record of a people is often crafted to suit their current agenda; especially when there is a shift in religion.  So ETHNIC continuities tend to be elided, especially if they do not serve a historiographic purpose (e.g. the national origin myth).  In “The Forgotten Diaspora”, I explore the possibility that the earliest Ashkenazim had [k]Hazarian (Turkic) provenance, yet—for understandable reasons—did not celebrate this fact.}

{70  I address this conundrum in my essay on “The History Of Sacred Texts”, where I note that tall tales regarding revelations—purportedly delivered in isolation—seem to always be limited to the exact place, time, and language that is convenient for the sacred history being touted.  These just-so stories are concocted post hoc to serve as etiological justification for the current agenda.}

{71  Such linguistic elision is not uncommon.  In my essay on “The Forgotten Diaspora”, I offer a philological inquiry into the origins of Old Yiddish, explaining how its origins in the Oghuric branch of Old Turkic have been occluded by Germanic and Slavic infusions during the intervening millennium.  A similar occlusion occurred with the tongue of the Bulgars, which has undergone such a drastic metamorphosis that it is now characterized as Slavic.  Meanwhile, modern Hungarians (i.e. Magyars) are reticent to embrace the Turkic roots of their Uralic tongue.}

{72  “But wait,” comes the response.  “Perhaps there were translators.”  This is, indeed, feasible.  However, consider the leaders with whom the Sahabah amicably corresponded who—according to them—spoke a foreign language.  That list contains exactly ZERO people.  (There was plenty of interaction with the Byzantines and Sassanians: both adversaries.)  Plus, there is no mention at all of “different tongues” or the use of “translators” in any of these correspondences.  Both parties spoke “lis[h]an-un Arabiyyan” (the tongue of the Arabs), which—at the time—was Syriac.  (Ishmaelites referred to themselves as “al-Arabi”.)  In the Koran, god himself notifies his audience that he make things easy for them by issuing the Recitations “bi-lis[h]an-ika” (in your tongue).  Which tongue was that?  “Arabiyyan”.  To pretend that this meant CA is highly disingenuous.}

{73 After Petra, the original Mohammedan stronghold was Kufa…not the Hijazi town of “Medina”, as is held in the traditional Islamic narrative. According to Mohammedan lore, the first three Rashidun caliphs (Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman) ruled from Yathrib-cum-Medina…before the new Ishmaelite empire suddenly, inexplicably, transitioned its capital to Kufa. This makes no sense. If everything had begun in “Medina”, then why would the fourth caliph (Ali) have moved the capital to Mesopotamia? What with Yathrib-cum-Medina (purportedly) being the home-base of the Faith (pre-Hijra), such a decision would have been quite strange. It is obvious why the historiography was revamped to retroactively designate “Medina” as the capital of the caliphate…as if it preceded Kufa (rather than the caliphs having ruled from Kufa all along). Had Abu Bakr taken over IN KUFA (as likely occurred), it would disrupt the just-so story confabulated later on (about the origins of the Faith being in Mecca), as it wouldn’t comport with Mohammed of Mecca hailing from the Hijaz. I explore the actual history of the first Mohammedans in my essay on “Mecca And Its Cube”.}