Following the Basic-Class

Now that I've read Scripts and Scripture it is time to visit editor Fred Donner's contribution - of that same title. As its title and position imply this is an introduction and summary; much of the groundwork being done by al-Jallad, Nehmé, and MacDonald who all have their own contributions here. It ends with "two puzzles" which I'll handle tonight.

In 1996 Yehuda Nevo emitted his preliminary comments upon the "Basic Class" versus "Muhammadan" and "Muslim" classes, in the Arabic inscriptions primarily in Negev. This he and Judith Koren tied to some local archaeology which, as Jeremy Johns documented, was cods. And Crossroads to Islam annoyed the hell out of Byzantine scholarship, from its first chapter, which mooted that what now-Istanbul calls the derin devlet was equally active in then-Constantinople except actively treasonous. (Back in the middle-2000s I was getting some of the email. It was quite personal.)

So this book's editors have set that book at arms-length. The contributors, each for their own purposes, have taken cue. Newby p. 121 footnotes Nevo-Koren to represent critical scholarship (which he scorns); Longworth, 185 adds the book to a general list without comment; Lindstedt, 208 relays one inscription but retranslates it.

I've never wholly written-off Nevo-Koren; not least, I accept their eviction of sura 48 from canon and hope more scholars (and more Muslims) would follow. As for Nevo's main thesis it lately turns out that Nevo was right at least that we may classify Arabic monotheistic inscriptions. Lindstedt's article serves to validate Crossroads to Islam, 332: a jihad class exists in this piety, not found prior to Marwânî-heyday AH 70-110 (and rare afterward). This seems as good a post as any to express disappointment with Dr Lindstedt that he did not refer to this Nevo-Koren paragraph.

As to the basic-class, it looks like funereal Coptic: expressed is a worry about death and the life everlasting to follow it, with pleas for forgiveness and mercy, made to a singular God. The main difference is that a Copt might mention Christ; the Arab will instead plead with God that He intercede for Christ - or other prophets - whilst He's in the forgiving mood (usually by the sly root). Arabs might at most hope for the prophets to intercede as on the Dome of the Rock (here shafa'a) but even here, as Nevo pointed out, we're no longer in the basic-class by AH 72. [UPDATE 2/22/24 see now Tillier.]

So: Donner, at al-Ḥanâkiya, W1 (and W3, W7 ... others) p. 13. His following page muses if, here, we have Qâric language before Qurân. In W1 one Rafi' bin 'Ali wrote âmantu annahu lâ ilâha illâ alladhî âmanat bihi Banû Isrâîla hanîfan musliman wamâ ana al-mushrikûna.

W1 as usual Basic lacks hamza, which hamza will be seen of Classical Arabic (probably contemporary Iraqi Arabic); and no orthography to force the long â in *âmana. The personal names are Arabic not Qâric. W1 reads as to follow the instruction of Q. 10:90, qâla âmantu annahu lâ ilâha illâ alladhî âmanat bihi Banû Isrâîla wa-anâ mina 'l-muslimîna then v. 105 / 30:30-1, hanîfan / walâ takûnanna mina 'l-mushrikîna.

To that I say sura 10 follows sura 30, which went on to note "muslims" v. 53. Sura 10 injects its own concern about the history of Israel (as Nicolai Sinai has observed, in Egypt). Simplest is that W1 depend upon sura 10. If W1 be "pre-Islamic" then, how do I put this... why was Rafi' calling himself a Muslim (alternatively aligning himself with Israel the Muslim)? Also "pre-Islamic" would thus be sura 10 itself; its source sura 30, likewise. Maybe we can make this claim for sura 10's other sources which (by my count) include 17, 54, 56, 80 and more. Although sura 17 depends on sura 30 for its own part.

Still: Donner is onto something. The truth is that although W1 is sura 10 / sura 30 Muslim, it remains nonetheless pre-Ishmaelist. Our Qurân prefers that the one god be that of the "Banû Ibrâhîma". W1 does not care for suwar 3-9's movement to Abraham (much less Ibrâhîm) via Ishmael. W1 is pre-Muhammadan as well, clearly.