Talk:Pre-Islamic Arabia

Untitled

As an outsider to Wiki and Arabia expert, I find the comments to this article to contain a mixture of facts and polemic. Briefly, Wiki articles are not supposed to be a reflection of given faith or belief, but rather of fact. Special interest comments are evident. South-eastern Arabia also belongs to Arabia, but is not represented in the article. Azd0815 (talk) 07:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

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)

Minor Edits

I changed the phrasing of the first sentence. It previously stated "Pre-Islamic Arabia (aka. Jahiliyyah) is the history of Arab people who lived in the Arabian Plate before the rise of Islam in the 630s." Arabia refers to an actual thing which existed in the world; while history is written on it, Arabia is not "the history of...". I also removed the reference to Jahiliyyah. It doesn't maintain an NPOV, since it's solely an Islamic conception of the era. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaputa12 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

---

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)

Islam means the same in all languages: Submission. And since this is a supposedly scientific encyclopedia, it is completely irrelevant what "most moslems think" - only the hard facts count ! And fact is that the religious ideology of islam was founded by Mohammed in 610 CE. This is a historical fact. There's no arguing about that. Alexey Topol (talk) 15:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. We are not concerned with the Muslim POV. However, I do disagree that Islam means submission in all languages. In English, it is the religion that Mohammed established. It is a branch of the Abrahamic tradition, but only becomes Islam with the actions of Mohammed (much like Christianity didn't exist before Christ - before that, it was Judaism).Izuko (talk) 02:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I highly agree with The Lesser Merlin. The Prophet Muhammad was the Last and Final messenger and prophet in Islam. He was in no way the founder of any religion. It would be more logical to add "Pre-Muhammad" instead, or the more correct term used in Arabic as the Age of Jahiliyyah and not "pre-Islam". Or simply just put "Ancient Arabia" or whatever age like stone, iron, bronze, ect ect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.230.184.59 (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Please remove your religious tinted glasses. The branch of the Abrahamic religion known as "Islam" did not exist prior to Muhammed.

Sure if you look at it from a religious perspective then Islam has existed since the creation of the earth and universe. But from an objective historical perspective no known refernce to the religion known as Islam exist referred to as "Islam" until after Muhammed established it. TheJakal11 (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

It has been modified to mean Arabia before Muhammad preached Islam. Leo1pard (talk) 17:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

The Akkadians and Amorites in Ancient Arabia

The Akkadians 2400BC

The earliest known events in Arabian history are migrations from the peninsula into neighbouring areas . 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). 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 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."

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)The Lud bin Shem was born Tasm and Judays?who dwelt in al Yamaamah.Lud also begot 'Imliq whose dwelling place was the holy area(al haram) and the outskirts of Makka. Some of his descendant's reached Syria among these are the Amalekites from whom the Pharaohs of Egypt came. To Lud to was born Umaym who had many offspring some of these broke away to join Gomer bin Japheth in East.

from prophets and patriarchs

'Imliq is the father of the Amalekites from whom came the berbers,who are children of Thamila bin Maarib bin Faaraan bin 'Amr bin 'Imliq bin Lud bin Sam(Shem) bin Nuh (Noah)PBH

from prophets and patriarchs

and the Imliq had interaction with edomites Amalekites are not from Esau but intermingled with them(i think this is not right Amalekites are not from Esau but intermingled with them )) imliq succeed the thamud they would be adites) adites were known as idumeans so again mixing with esau i dont think so but i could be wrong the imliq were before time of Prophet Abraham PBH Prophet Ishmaeel PBH was sent to the jurhum and to imliq and to people of yemen

hittites mixed with adites

Amalek in the Muslim Tradition

Muslims and Arabs have their own tradition about Amalek or Amlaqi. In the Muslim tradition as complied in Tarikh al-Tabari or History of the Prophets and Kings, claim that Amalek was an ancient Arabian tribe, and that Amalek’s original name was “Arib”.

It also claims that the Amalekites originally lived in and were the guardians of Mecca, and the Black Stone inside it, the al-Hajaru-l-Aswad, a meteorite which serves as the cornerstone of the Kabaa. The Black Stone came from the Wabar craters, which were the impact site for a massive meteor which destroyed the legendary cite of Iram, 6000 years ago.

The layout of the impact area suggests that the body fell at a shallow angle, and was moving at typical meteorite entry speeds of 40,000 to 60,000 km/h. Its total mass was more than 3,500 tonnes. The shallow angle presented the body with more air resistance than it would have encountered at a steeper angle, and it broke up in the air into at least four pieces before impact. The biggest piece struck with an explosion roughly equivalent to the atom bomb that leveled Hiroshima.

The city of Iram or Ubar was an ancient city 6000 years ago destroyed by the impact. The Black Stone was not completely unique

there were other “Kaaba” structures in other parts of Arabia. A “red stone” was the deity of the south Arabian city of Ghaiman, and there was a “white stone” in the Ka’ba of al-Abalat (near the city of Tabala, south of Mecca)

According to Islamic tradition

Es Someyda was the last Amalekite king who dwelt in Mekka and ruled over Palestine and the lands in between. Here is his story: “The king of Syria es-Someyda, son of Hubar, son of Malik, marched against Joshua, son of Nun, and after many fights, was killed by the latter, who conquered his kingdom..

Mekka is of course Mecca. And here’s something fun…

In (Arabic: عملاق,ʿimlāq‎) is the singular of giant, and the plural is (عمالقة, ʿamāliqah) or (عماليق, ʿamālīq),

And then there’s Amalek in Egypt…

Al-Samhudi- The Amalekites reached Syria and Egypt and took possession of these lands, and the tyrants of Syria and the Pharaohs of Egypt were of their origin. ( Velikovsky, 1952, pg 64 )

Tabari- Then the king of Egypt died and another king, his relative, ascended the throne. He was also of Amalekite race and was named Kabous, son of Mosab, son of Maouya, son of Nemir, son of Salwas, son of Amrou, son of Amalek.( Velikovsky, 1952, pg 65 )

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) and the Imliq are from the Ad because after Ad came Thamud who are known as the second Ad then cam the Imliq in order for Imliq to be from the Ad they would have mixed! and the Ad were known as the giant people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.145.173 (talk) 11:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC) "The descendant`s of Shem settled al Majdal the navel of the earth,which is stuated between Satidama and the sea between the Yemen and syria,God bequethed them prophecy scripture and beauty and gave them complexions that were brown and white from Prophet's and Patriarchs" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.145.173 (talk) 11:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

'BCE' and 'CE'

Let's stop this stupid nonsense of 'BCE' and 'CE'. The terms BC and AD are quite in order and amply adequate. Interestingly enough, BCE can stand for Before the Christian Era and CE for [pertaining to] the Christian Era. Another example where political correctness shoots itself in the foot. I encourage all readers to edit out BCE and CE wherever they are found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.200.204 (talk) 12:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I moved your comment from the top to the bottom where it belongs. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Year numbering systems while either can be used they should not be changed without consensus. "Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors." Currently I see no consensus to change so I have reverted back for now. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 14:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Removing for the second time the incorrect Section on Early Migrations. Read the explanation!

I am getting lost in reading all your talk page. But I will address the three sources, that are given for the section which says that semetic people or Amorites and Akkadians migrated from arabia, into mesopotamia. The sources do not say this. And it is incorrect to say that any of these people came from Arabia. As wikipedia says itself they came from either west of mesopotamia, or north. Not south.

Source 1 :

"The earliest known events in Arabian history are migrations from the peninsula into neighbouring areas."

This doesn't tell us anything. And no proof of what exactly it says in that source. And it says there are migrations , but it doesn't say to which areas. And it doesn't say when, or who, or where to. And nothing to check. And all the other articles on these semetic people are saying that no, most were from the west or north, and migrated back and forth. Maybe some people in Arabia did migrate, but that doesn't make them "all of the semetic people in the middle east, have to come from Arabia". There are some people in Arabia. And there are some people who were in the middle east from mediterranean to syria and mesopotamia. There is no connection to say that all the people must have come from Arabia. And all the pages here at wikipedia about the individual people, say that they came from canaan and syria, not Arabia.

Source 2: Akkadians http://public.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/AKKAD.HTM

This page does not say what it has been used for a citation for. It's mention of Akkadians coming into contact with Sumerians as they moved up from the south is talking about Akkadians in South Mesopotamia moving up. Because the Akkadians were in the south of mesopotamia after they first arrived there, and the sumerians were in the north. So this is not South as in Arabia. It is south as in Mesopotamia. And migration from Arabia is mentioned nowhere in that source.

Source 3: Encyclopedia Britannica says "Although the Amorites were equated with the west - by the people of the time". Encyclopedia Britannica then says that "It is likely that the people of the time were wrong, and that encyclopedia Britannica want to say what is likely, and it gives no reason for its claim. :D amazing from an encyclopedia, it says an opinion of "likelihood", without any basis of facts. The pages at wikipedia, about the Amorites, and other people do say that they came from the west, or north, and never say they came from Arabia in the south.

"ARTICLE from theEncyclopædia Britannica

Amorite, member of an ancient Semitic-speaking people who dominated the history of Mesopotamia, Syria, and Palestine from about 2000 to about 1600 bc. In the oldest cuneiform sources (c. 2400–c. 2000 bc), the Amorites were equated with the West, though their true place of origin was most likely Arabia, not Syria. They were troublesome nomads and were believed to be one of the causes of the downfall of the 3rd dynasty of Ur (c. 2112–c. 2004 bc)."

Wikipedia page about the Amorites: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amorite

Doesn't say anything about migrating from Arabia. It says they came from the WEST!

"Origin

In the earliest Sumerian sources, beginning about 2400 BC, the land of the Amorites ("the Mar.tu land") is associated not with Mesopotamia but with the West, including what is now modern Syria and Canaan."

"From inscriptions and tablets

In the earliest Sumerian texts, all western lands beyond the Euphrates, including Syria and Canaan, were known as "the land of the MAR.TU (Amorites)"."

Summary: This is being deleted again.

It is not correct and you have no right to claim people migrating from Arabia, to try and claim something for Arabs or Arabia history, which belongs to Canaan and Syria geography, and belongs to other semetic ethnic groups not ones from Arabia. When the people who were Amorites and Akkadians were other semetic peoples, who did not come from Arabia, but came from Canaan and Syria according to all their own individual article pages here at wikipedia, and so also according to the sources which are included within those article pages.

There has been plenty of explanation of why the claims are false, and that the evidence is showing that these people did not come from Arabia. And so please stop restoring incorrect and wrong information and undoing another person's edit, without respecting other's spending their time to write you these explanations, so you can see why it is wrong.

If I claim that Arabs migrated from Europe when it is not true, how will you like it? Stick to your own history and don't alter other's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.168.139 (talk) 05:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Weird Narrative

The Sasanians' ally; the Lakhmids, were also Christian Arabs, but from the life giving rivers of modern day Iraq. The section on 'Late Antiquity' is written very strangely, and sounds like it was translated by a non-English speaker. The text should be cleaned up if you want it to sound like a normal article. Would edit it myself but not certain about the facts involved. 96.246.247.252 (talk) 09:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)"The descendant`s of Shem settled al Majdal the navel of the earth,which is stuated between Satidama and the sea between the Yemen and syria,God bequethed them prophecy scripture and beauty and gave them complexions that were brown and white from Prophet's and Patriarchs"

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pre-Islamic Arabia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071112044629/http://www.iranica.com:80/newsite/articles/v2f3/v2f3a002.html to http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v2f3/v2f3a002.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

how many population?

Is there any information about the population of Pre-Islamic Arabia, especially during Muslim conquests? 46.225.74.129 (talk) 09:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring

Yufitran boldly made an edit.

Alhaqiha reverted the edit.

At this point, it was time to discuss the issue. That's what we call the Bold, Revert, Discuss cylce.

Instead, there have been several rereverts, rerereverts and rererereverts. That's what we call edit warring. Neither of you have made any attempt to discuss this that I have seen. Please do so now. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

First of all thank you

I just wrote what is in this reference and in The New Encyclopaedia Britannicap:818 and all other references shows Kindah as a bedouin tribal kingdom or a tribal kingdom or a tribal confederation.

And i put in front of this german reference "D. H. Müller, Al-Hamdani, 53, 124, W. Caskel, Entdeckungen In Arabien, Koln, 1954, S. 9. Mahram, P.318" a Request quotation template--Yufitran (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello SummerPhDv2.0! I saw that the user Yufitran made an edit on this page which made no sense for a few reasons. First of all, he uses britanicca, which is a mirror encyclopedia and is not allowed as a sources on wikipedia. Second of all, he removed the origin of the tribe and replaced it with bedouin tribal kingdom which sounds more like he tries to degrade the topic. Thirdly, the german source was not inserted by you, the source was already there before you made a edit.

The type of edits that I have seen you making on this page and another page about Moroccan genetics mirrors the type of edits the POV pushing sock-puppet user:JovanAndreano used to make. And I also want to understand how it is possible that your new account "Yufitran" which only exists 4 days already is calling me a stalker after reverting one of your edits? That actually reveals you know me, and you know I keep an eye on your ip adresses and userpages which you misuse to remove arab related information from pages and twist information around. I also find that you should not claim that people are stalking you in the comment sections and degrade them like that, it reminds me a lot of the type of comments you made with your other ip adresses link. The user SummerPhDv2.0 reverted the edits to it's last stable version, and I agree it should stay like that.Alhaqiha (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

His account is blocked for sock-puppetry User:SummerPhDv2.0.Alhaqiha (talk) 18:40, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pre-Islamic Arabia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150528053210/http://www.aub.edu.lb/communications/media/Documents/May_2011/grant-syriac-EN.pdf to http://www.aub.edu.lb/communications/media/Documents/May_2011/grant-syriac-EN.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150528032636/http://heritage.brookes.ac.uk/downloads/abu-dhabi-collections.pdf to http://heritage.brookes.ac.uk/downloads/abu-dhabi-collections.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071112054008/http://www.iraqandiraqis.com/Arab%20history.htm to http://www.iraqandiraqis.com/Arab%20history.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Third paragraph needs a revamp in my opinion

The entire third opening paragraph is entirely uncited and makes some fairly, in my opinion, controversial claims when presented as fact. For example, how sure are we of the relative composure of people in pre-Islamic Arabia who followed Indian religions? Surely, if only by pure chance, there were definitely some individuals there who followed Indian religions, but are they enough to warrant a mention without potentially leading readers into overstimating their prevalence? If we mention, based on conjecture and estmation, those who follow Indian religions should we not equally, based on conjecture and estimation, include how many athiests were in Arabia in this time? Further in the article Buddhists are mentioned, again uncited, which frankly makes me think this may have been an overzealous edtior. Sorry if I'm coming across as aggressive, that's not my intention but I could see how it could be read that way.

JBrahms (talk) 02:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Periodisation? Missing!

"Pre-Islamic Arabia": it's so painfully Islamocentric! Thousands of years of history hiding behind an, admittedly major, event of the 6th-7th c. CE. You cannot hinge a whole millennia-long history on one aspect, we need a proper periodisation for the region. Anyone?

What are the archaeological and historical periods used by mainstream scholars for the Peninsula? For instance, which of the following periods known from the Southern Levant do apply?

• Neolithic (Pre-Pottery and Pottery)
• Chalcolithic
• Bronze Age
• Iron Age
• periods named after dominant Mesopotamian empires: Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian
• Hellenistic period (Hellenistic rule not, but huge cultural influence)
• Nabataean period?
• Roman period
• Byzantine and/or Sasanian period?

Then following:

• Early Muslim period:
  • Muhammad & the Rashidun period
  • Umayyad period (fitnas, so maybe less so here)
  • Abbasid period
  • Fatimid period

Further up north the Crusaders create the upper boundary of the Early Muslim period. Here, apart for some raids from the Oultrejourdain holdings, they were hardly a presence, but were a .ajor impulse for the reumification of much of the Muslim realm.

• Ayyubid period
• Mamluk period
• Ottoman period

It's badly needed. Arminden (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)