And I thank you for it. It looks to be an interesting book.
However, I am also interested in examining the theory and other theories here and now. Since I cannot read the book at this time, I’ll do the admittedly not perfect thing - attempt to understand the theory from other sources. Presumably if these other sources are incorrect, you - how have read the book - can so inform us.
What else can one do? I won’t simply accept a book as definitive authority on the issue without question, because I don’t accept anything without question, and time to read the book and continue this thread lacks.
As to the point, what I understand is that the evidence for pre-rabinical patrilinially basically amounts to the fact that various Biblical figures married non-Jewish women and their children were considered Jewish. My understanding may be incorrect and there is more to it than that.
But it doesn’t describe Muslims because you can’t name a single item of shared Muslim heritage outside of religion.
What is an example of “Muslim culture” which is not religious?
This is all circular and evasive. You can’t define a word by repeating the word.
Also, Ummah has two basic meanings - it either refers specifically to the Arab world (not the same as the Muslim world, obviously, since most Muslims are not Arab), or to the Islamic concept ummat al-mu’minin which means “community of believers.” I repeat, it refers to believers. Which ummah are you identfying yourself with - with Arab world or with the believers?
Not quite. Those Jews share a common (though admittedly distant) Jewish ancestry. Muslims have no shared ancestry.
You’re moving the goal posts. The article you cited merely noted they need a common heritage. You’re now demanding a “heritage outside of religion” that many groups whom you recognize as ethnic groups would be unable to produce.
The same as Jewish culture.
Well, for starters, all humans share a common ancestry. It’s very debatable how many of the Falashas are descendants of the original Jews of Palestine and the same is true of the Jews of Georgia who, for the most part due to history and intermarriage are probably not like other Ashkenazis and many if not most, are no more genetic descendants of the original Jews of Palestine than you or I.
Anyway if you want to continually insist that Muslims are not an ethnic group because it doesn’t fit your pet definition, though you seem to feel that way for Arabs(who didn’t really exist until the late 19th Century and only exploded in the early 20th Century) then go ahead. As Alessan said, we came first.
The article cited religion as one possible example of a common heritage. You are the one who is saying that “Muslim” has a meaning outside of the religious. Are yoiu no admitting that it doesn’t?
There’s really no such thing as Jewish culture either, outside the religious, and arguably the Hebrew language. You’re denying that Muslims are defined by religion and they have no shared language, so what DO they have?
Of course, but we’re talking about shared ancestry going back to a a particular religious origin.
Is this your way of admitting you can’t name a single thing that defines the word “Muslim” outside of religion.
Arabs didn’t exist until the 19th Century? Really? Tell that to Muhammed. He somehow knew the language.
I had this problem a too until I puzzled out Apple’s interface. It’s doable if you cut and paste the link. Just highlight the whole URL, hit “copy” and then on a new webpage press “paste”. You can fill in the simple URL if you don’t want to gussy it up, but adding the URL tags is pretty easy too if you want to present it with a text hyperlink.
Thank you for conceding you were wrong to claim that Muslims aren’t an ethnic group or at least that going by your source they are.
Huh? I never said they weren’t defined by religion the same as the Jews, Druze and Mandaeans are.
Muhammad certainly didn’t think of himself as an Arab. Arab national consciousness didn’t really develop until the late 19th Century. Until then, the term “Arab” was considered a pejorative.
People throughout the Middle East until the development of Arab national consciousness, which was inspired by Europeans, identified themselves by their religion. I.E. Muslim, Christian, Druze, etc.
In fact, Arab National consciousness was developed by Christians attempting to unite Arabic-speaking Christians and Muslims and Arabic-speaking Jews were specifically excluded. However, Arab national consciousness didn’t really come to fruition until just after WWI.
Similarly, Palestinian national consciousness, Iraqi national consciousness, Syrian national consciousness, etc. didn’t really exist until the 1950s or the 1960s.
Prior to then, when people referred to “Palestinian freedom-fighters” they were invariably referring to Zionists not to the people we now regard as Palestinians.
The evidence is that Jewish sources before the Mishnah don’t discuss matrilinearity, and do discuss patrilinearity…not just various biblical figures, but Philo, Josephus, the Christian Apostle Paul, the writer of the Christian book acts, the Apocryphical stuff, the Pseudepigrapha, the Qumran scrolls, all use patrilineal descent.
There is no question that patrilinial descent was important for some things - for example, the geneology of Jesus is given partilinially. That is true today as well - for example, in modern society, at least until recently, the family name was patrilineal. In ancient times, certain matters were clearly patrilineal, such as priesthood and kingship. Ethnic identity was essentially irrelevant until ethnic mixing became an issue of concern, most notably after the Babylonian captivity.
Some of the quoted sources are not really good ones for athropological details concerning pre-rabbinical Jewish practices - for example, Acts is thought to have been written by a (Koine) Greek-speaking Gentile writing for an audience of Gentile Christians, and towards the end of the first century AD if not later; by which time, allegedly, Judaism had already become matrilinial. From your previous post:
Cohen’s argument, though, is that Judaism doesn’t become matrilineal until after the 1st Century…until the time of the Mishnah. Do you know any sources before the Mishnah that use it?
The Druze are ethnically Arab. What separates the Druze and Mandeans from their neighbors is their religion, and the isolation that developed around that.
I’m a United States citizen because I was born here. There are other ways to be a US citizen–be born to a citizen overseas, be born in a territory like Puerto Rico, or become naturalized.
Judaism-the-religion has similar citizenship tests. For the Orthodox and Conservative streams, being a Jew-from-birth requires a mother who is either a Jew-from-birth or a Jew-by-choice (convert). For Reform (and other less halakhically-based streams), either matrilineal descent alone or patrilineal descent plus a Jewish upbringing are sufficient to be considered a Jew without conversion.
Israel has other, similar but not identical, tests for granting citizenship under the Right of Return.
In no case are the Jewish people a single ethnicity. My Conservative shul has many converts, and it’s a bit of a rainbow, from an ethnicity point of view. Even without converts, there are tons of cultural/ethnic distinctions between Ashkenazim and Sephardim (which is not really a good category, as they are not all “Spanish”) at the macro level, and between various groups within those larger umbrellas.
If I’m a US citizen by birth, but was raised elsewhere, I might not be at all culturally American (US-flavor), but I’m still a citizen. Same for being a Jew-from-birth (at least by the more traditional definitions).
It is extremely debatable as to whether or not Arabic actually pre-existed Islam, if you define Islam as starting when Muhammad first talked to God. I believe that Classical Arabic was first used with the writing of the Quran, which is why it’s so often commonly known as Quranic Arabic. One scholar, who goes by the name Christophe Luxenberg actually has claimed the the Quran was actually written in Aramaic which, if true, would indicate that Quranic Arabic didn’t come around until later.
That aside, it’s ridiculous to talk about “the ethnicity” pre-existed the development of Arab nationalism in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries.
Do you honestly think if you went back in time to Damascus of the early 1800s and asked it’s Arabic speaking inhabitants they’re “ethnicity” or “nationality” they’d say “I’m an Arab”?
Of course not. Once you explained the terms, they’d simply say, “I’m a Muslim”, “I’m a Christian”, or “I’m a Jew”.
For that matter, if you asked the Muslims, “Don’t you think that you and the Arabic-speaking Christians of this city are of the group” they’d look at you like you’d grown a second head.
They didn’t view themselves as being part of the same nation any more than Australians and Americans think they’re of the same nation. By your standards they’re both “English”.
They most certainly are. I know Charles Haberl who’s easily one of the foremost scholars on the Mandaeans and he’d laugh at the idea that they’re not defined by their religious beliefs.
Similarly, if you’re going to claim that Muslims Arabs should be seen as primarily “Arabs” it makes no sense not classify the Druze as Arabs as well, particularly considering how many Druze have been historically Arab nationalists.