Talk:Quraysh

WP:BOLD removal of Muhammad's tribe

The Muhammad's Tribe section has been marked for nearly two years as unsourced and as having an inappropriate tone. I looked around, and it seems that it was somewhat copied and then modified from a book, perhaps the Quran. I really have no idea, and until we get some sourcing and cleanup on it, it shouldn't be in the article. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Whaaaat? The Qur'an rarely speaks about Quraish.--24.186.110.18 (talk) 02:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Etymology of the word Quresh

How this word came into being. I think it means shark (fish), but no proof to back it up. If someone can throw a hint... Jon Ascton  (talk) 12:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you are referring to Al-Tabari: "Quraysh were so called after a creature which lives in the sea and eats other sea creatures, namely, the shark (qirsh). The descendants of al-Nadr b. Kinanah were named after the qirsh because it is the most powerful of sea creatures." (Page 30 of Watt & McDonald's translation of volume 6, SUNY.)

However, Al-Tabari gives five different etymologies for the word Quraysh and frankly admits that nobody knows which, if any, is the correct one. If Al-Tabari did not know, I doubt that we shall know either.Petra MacDonald 11:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petra MacDonald (talk • contribs)

It is also likely originated from the Arabic word "Taqqarush" which meant "trade". I personally think that this is the correct etymology since the Makka was a very well-known Arab trading centre at that time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.195.200.14 (talk) 03:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Religious affiliation of the Quraysh tribe

Any idea about what religion was prevalent in Arabia among the Banu Quraysh tribes before Mohammad? Was it paganism or Judaism or Christianity? - Vatsan34 (talk) 15:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

learn about history please ! qoreysh were worshiping god called al manat al uzza al-lat ! it was the major religion of all arabs,the only christian arab tribes were the ghassnid and the lakhmid there were some arab who were jews but they were known but qurays and majority of arabs were loving al manat al uzza and al lat not judaism not christiannity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofiane2k6 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

No need to be rude. I've added something to the article about Manaf, Isaf, and Na'ila, but you'll need sources to show this tribe also worshiped Manat, Allat (al-Lat, the “Goddess”), and al-Uzza although it isn't clear whether Manat and Manaf were the same or different deities. Dougweller (talk) 17:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a lot more complex than my brief edit, without even going into the subtribes. Dougweller (talk) 17:02, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Here is some information from Hisham ibn Kalbi's Book of Idols (translated by N. A. Faris in 1952, published by the Princeton University Press), in which he describes the religion of pre-Islamic Arabia from a Muslim perspective.

Page 27. “Every family in Mecca had at home an idol which they worshipped. Whenever one of them purposed to set out on a journey his last act before leaving the house would be to touch the idol in hope of an auspicious journey; and on his return, the first thing he would do was to touch it again in gratitude for a propitious return,”

Page 27. “The Arabs were passionately fond of worshipping idols. Some of them took unto themselves a temple around which they centered their worship, while others adopted an idol to which they offered their adoration. The person who was unable to build himself a temple or adopt an idol would erect a stone in front of the Sacred House or in front of any other temple which he might prefer, and then circumambulate it in the same manner in which he would circumambulate the Sacred House ... Whenever a traveler stopped at a place or station in order to rest or spend the night, he would select for himself four stones, pick out the finest among them and adopt it as his god, and use the remaining three as supports for his cooking-pot ... Nevertheless they were aware of the excellence and superiority of the Ka'bah, to which they went on pilgrimage and visitation. What they did on their travels was a perpetuation of what they did at the Ka'bah, because of their devotion to it.”

Page 27. “The menstruating women were not allowed to come near the idols or to touch them. Rather, they stood far off.”

Page 16. “Al-Uzza was the greatest idol among the Quraysh ... Her idol was situated in a valley in Nakhlat al-Sha'miyah called Hurad.”

Page 17. Muhammad once mentioned: “I have offered a white sheep to al-'Uzza, while I was a follower of the religion of my people.”

Page 22. “The Quraysh as well as the other Arabs who inhabited Mecca did not offer to any of the idols anything similar to their veneration of al-'Uzza. The next in order of veneration was Allat and then Manah.”

Page 14. “Allat stood in Ta’if.”

Page 12. “The inhabitants of Mecca used to venerate Manah, sacrifice before her and bring her their offerings.”

Page 17. “The Quraysh were wont to circumambulate the Ka'bah and say: ‘By Allat and al-'Uzza/And Manah, the third idol besides/Verily they are the most exalted females/Whose intercession is to be sought.’ These were also called ‘the Daughters of Allah’, and were supposed to intercede before God.”

Page 23. “The Quraysh had also several idols in and around the Ka'bah. The greatest of these was Hubal. It was, as I was told, of red agate, in the form of a man with the right hand broken off. It came into the possession of the Quraysh in this condition, and they, therefore, made for it a hand of gold.”

Page 24. “Among their idols, the Quraysh also had Isif and Na'ilah. On being transformed into petrified form, they were placed by the Ka'bah in order that people might see them and be warned.”

Page 23. “They did not, however, hold the same regard, or anything approaching it, for the five idols which were introduced by 'Amr ibn-Luhayy. These are the five idols which God mentioned in the glorious Koran when He said, ‘Forsake not Wadd nor Suwa', nor Yaghuth and Ya'us and Nasr.’” [This suggests that these five were nevertheless worshipped occasionally in Mecca.]

Page 25. Ibn Kalbi mentions other names that the Arabs gave their children with the prefix “abd” [“servant of”]: Yalil, Ghanm, Kulal and Ruda. But he is not certain that these were the names of gods.

With such a selection to hand, it no longer seems surprising that the Kaaba was said to contain 360 idols.Petra MacDonald 04:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Is this article supposed to be historical?

I ask because in the intro it mentions Ishmael as if he were an actual person when he was, in reality, fictitious. Dr. Morbius (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Better now? Dougweller (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

There are more problems than just that - the whole article assumes that the general Islamic version of Mohammad and Mecca is factual. There is, in fact, almost no evidence at all for Mecca being home to Mohammad, or any of the stuff in this article, other than from Islamic religious sources. The evidence for Mecca being a major trading centre, for example, is absent everywhere you'd expect to find references to it in the ancient world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.133.237 (talk) 02:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

This complaint makes very little sense to me as nearly all Arabic sources of this period are Islamic sources. What non-Islamic sources of the period would you expect to speak with authority on the Arabian peninsula? Jpshackelford (talk) 01:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

First of all, all Arabic/Islamic sources were written way after (at least a century) after the events, and the ones still available today were written at least 150 years after the events. Secondly, not only Arabic sources are relevant here. There were almost contemporaneous historians who wrote about Muhammad in other languages, namely John of Damascus, Armenian monk Sebeos, etc. In principle, they are way more reliable as sources than later Islamic account which would likely be based on hearsay, and be politically and ideologically biased. --Ideophagous (talk) 08:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

And by the way, that's not my opinion, in case someone wants to bring up the WP:OR card. Several historians are of this opinion, namely Tom Holland, Patricia Crone, Mohamed Lemsyeh, etc. --Ideophagous (talk) 08:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 5 January 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. The Quraysh tribe indeed seems to be the primary topic of Quraysh. Whether the DAB page can be replaced by hatnotes may need further discussion. As the IP notes, there are other entries that may belong on the DAB page. EdJohnston (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC) EdJohnston (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

---

Quraysh tribe → Quraysh – This group is the primary meaning of the term "Quraysh" since surat Quraysh is named after them. Google Scholar results for "Quraysh" (the first page has five results referring to the tribe and one referring to the sura) and view counts (in November, this article got 8775 views compared to 719 for the sura) bear this out. There's no need for a disambiguation page: with two pages, a hatnote will do the job. --Relisted.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC) —Neil P. Quinn (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

weak oppose Quraysh is an adjective that does not change form when being moved when going from singular to plural. We can talk of groups of people as: Albanians, Andalusians, Arabs, Asturians and Austrians but we also talk of British people, Dutch people, English people, Flemish people, French people, Gagauz people, Galician people, Kalmyk people, Maltese people, Portuguese people, Romani people, Scottish people, Spanish people, Turkish people, Black Welsh people and Yenish people most of which have a familiar h ending. I take the reference to the Quraysh tribe as being synonymous with a Quraysh people. GregKaye 17:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Gregkaye: I don't entirely understand. In scholarship (like in this article), this clan is generally referred to as "the Quraysh" (I can source this if you're doubtful), with the word functioning as a noun rather than an adjective. Even in phrases like "Quraysh caravans" or "Quraysh tribe", the word seems to be noun adjunct rather than a true adjective.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Neil P. Quinn Thank you for genuinely interesting information. Just to clarify, when words, from British to Yenish, are used to preceed words like people, are they used as adjectives or in role as noun adjunct? I have only gone as far as to look at a few dictionaries and they affix the term noun to "British people". On what basis do you ascribe noun adjunct to Quraysh and not to the demonyms mentioned? I've done a few searches as follows:

• "the British were" gets "About 545,000 results"
• "the British people" gets "About 530,000 results"
• "the British are" gets "About 502,000 results"
• "the British give" gets "About 437,000 results"
• "the British have" gets "About 398,000 results"
• "the British made" gets "About 303,000 results"
• "the British were" gets "About 256,000 results"
• "the French were" gets "About 475,000 results"
• "the French people" gets "About 440,000 results"
• "the French are" gets "About 510,000 results"
• "the French give" gets "About 21,800 results"
• "the French have" gets "About 458,000 results"
• "the French made" gets "About 231,000 results"
• "the French were" gets "About 475,000 results"

Surely Quraysh is a similar form of word with the same grammatical rules applying.

We can say Americans and know what we are talking about but if we just say "American" the question is raised, American what?

I think the same is true of Quraysh. Quraysh what?

GregKaye 21:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Gregkaye: I agree that British, French, Turkish, and so on are fundamentally adjectives; when they're used as nouns, I'd classify them as adjectival nouns rather than noun adjuncts. But Quraysh is different: it's fundamentally not an adjectives but a collective noun referring to a group of people, like "the government" or "Clan Donald" (the Oxford English Dictionary, for example, gives "Koreish, n...An Arabic tribe living around Mecca".)

In the original Arabic, it's only a noun; the adjective is Qurayshi, which is today a common family name. Most people writing in English don't use "Qurayshi" since it's not as well known, although some do. Instead, they use the noun "Quraysh" as noun adjunct (saying "Quraysh caravans" like you might say "silk caravans," even though the caravans themselves aren't made out of silk). So I think asking "Quraysh what?" is like asking "United States what?"—even though we use phrases like "the United States government", "United States" by itself is definitely a noun.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

You are not agreeing. Surely when a word is used in a particular situation then its use in that situation is the thing at issue. How is Quraysh a collective noun? How does it fit in comparison to entries such as in the Wiktionary Glossary of collective nouns by subject. This has inclusions such as "An armoury of aardvarks", "A faculty of academics]]", "A troupe of acrobats" and "A cast, company, condescension, cry, or queue of actors" and I don't see how Quraysh fits. How is "Quraysh" more of a collective noun than "British" or "French" etc.? Clan Donald is called "Clan Donald". It isn't just called "Donald". To me your most compelling argument is regarding dictionary usage. Distinctions between adjectival nouns and noun adjuncts are blurred. GregKaye 09:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Well, I stand by my distinction (blurry as it may admittedly be) between adjectival nouns and noun adjuncts, but perhaps in nerding out over grammar I've lost site of the central point. Whatever their specific grammatical classifications, both "the Quraysh" and "the French" function as collective nouns. The main reason we don't move French people (which starts "The French are a nation and ethnic group...") to French is that there's ambiguity with French language. Here, there's some ambiguity with Quraysh (sura) but I'm arguing that "Quraysh" primarily refers to this tribe and so we can do to Quraysh tribe what we can't do to French people.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I'm pretty sure the disambiguation page is missing all sorts of entries [1][2][3] , per the alternate spellings in the dab page -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 05:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support a move per nom. As noted, the DAB page can be deleted and a DAB hatnote used instead per WP:TWODABS. —  AjaxSmack  01:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

• There's really nothing other than Quraysh (sura) to disambiguate. There are a bunch of people with the family name Qurayshi and the scholar Judah ibn Kuraish, but neither of those are commonly referred to as "Quraysh/Kuraish". I'm going to redirect the disambig page here.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no historical evidence for the Quraysh tribe having existed

All your sources are from Islamic hagiography and tradition.

There is no historical record of such a people outside these sources and yet sources exist that denote the historical existence of all other Arabic tribes of the period.

There is no Arabic root to the word Quraysh. Historians have proposed a derivation from Syriac, attributing the sense of foederati ‘confederation’. In this conception, the Quraysh were not a tribe so much as a coalition of Arab parties under Roman patronage, situated near the imperial frontier in Syria.

Care to cite a source? What historical sources do suggest should be consulted?

This page really needs sorting out with some historical accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.185.183.185 (talk) 15:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I authored none of this page but the material presented here is fairly consistent with the little medieval scholarship on this period I've read from secular sources. I am not aware of non-Islamic literature able to speak in detail about events on the Arabian peninsula during this period. If you have sources in mind that should be consulted, please indicate. I hope you are not arguing that because the only knowledge we have of a place or events in a particular period comes from a religious source, it is somehow unhistorical since this would eliminate most Medieval history. Jpshackelford (talk) 01:55, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

List of chiefs/members

I’ve reverted a series of good faith edits by an IP which added a massive list of Qurashi chiefs/ members. The list was largely unsourced and way too long. If anything it belongs in a list article so I’ve temporarily relocated it to Draft:List of members of Quraysh until sources can be provided, after which it can perhaps be moved to List of members of Quraysh. —Al Ameer (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Troll Citation

I believe citation 10 is a troll.

" Fück 1965, p. 884." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azahid1g (talk • contribs) 00:43, 12 March 2022 (UTC)