Full transcript of “The "Muhammad and his wives" inscription: a tentative assessment”. Click a timestamp to open the video at that moment. Need another video? Use the YouTube transcript generator.
0:01 Well, hello everyone. Um, I'm making this video while out on the on the road. I'm doing my chamino at the minute, so the sound quality may not be as good as you'd expect, but hopefully you can hear me clearly. Um, this is just a response to numerous requests to talk about what about the Muhammad and his wives inscription, which you see in the picture here. Um, the big problem I see with it is it looks suspicious already just from the initial first impression that someone would go and make an inscription on a piece of rock that's not suited to making an inscription. It's already very
0:47 weathered and battered. Um, even given the passing of centuries, I would expect that they would have found a smoother piece of rock to do the inscription on, rather than picking one that had already grooves and cracks. It's kind of too convenient because it actually makes it look like it is naturally weathered. Um, whereas you find that there are other inscriptions with a perfectly smooth rock and it's nice and clear. Um, so that's my just initial first impressions. Okay. And the big question is, is this early? Um, I sent a message to Ilka Lindstead about this one, and he
1:33 said in terms of the paleontography, it could be 7th or 8th century, but paleontography, which is the study of of the writing script and trying to date things according to that, isn't 100%. Um, we need more evidence beyond that, especially when this inscription doesn't come with a date and we can't rule out the possibility that this is a forgery which happens. Um, inscriptions that are inconvenient gets destroyed, inscriptions get added to, as we saw with the um inscription. Um, things get squashed in the corner and things like that. Um, so we we kind of have to keep an open mind. We can't assume too much.
2:19 So let's delve into it then, shall we? So it is an inscription that has been reported by some as an early reference to Muhammad and his wives. And this is uh the text given there. Bottom left we have it reported by Juan Cole. The prophet Muhammad's wives and Muslim women in early Arabian rock inscriptions. This is from 2020. Ahmed bin Ganim Alida published a photograph of an inscription he found south of Alola near ancient Hij in Saudi Arabia. It was picked up and transcribed by Saudi archaeologist Muhammad El Ma Maktawi.
3:09 The inscription says, "God forgive Muhammad the prophet and join with him his wives and God forgive the male and female believers and forgive Sally." Um, so we're obviously going to assume that the the reference to Muhammad there is actually Mmed or MC. Um, but other than that, it seems like it fits in nicely with Islamic narrative. And here it is again. Now, I I wanted to find out a little bit more about Al Maktawi that's mentioned
3:55 um and I found this in Arab news. I'm obviously suspicious um a little bit by nature but um I wanted to find out if there's any hint of a pattern of forgery or reporting sensational inscriptions etc. So this is talking about um antiquities that have been returned that were were um taken from Saudi Arabia. Uh he said that most of the items returned are in their original and intact conditions. Some have suffered minor fractures have been treated by the department of restoration of the heritage and museum sector. Muhammad Al Maktawi, a Saudi expert in early Islamic inscriptions, has discovered more than
4:42 3,000 early Islamic inscriptions and has read, studied, and linked many of them to historical sources. So, I'm a little bit sus suspicious that he seems to be um not only finding really early inscriptions, but linking them with um historical sources. It just seems too convenient. Could be true, but just seems it raises a question mark. He contributed to the discovery and restoration of three archaeological sites on the old carvin route called the path of the prophets and was registered on the national archaeological register. Al-Matawi handed in three pieces of early Islamic
5:29 inscriptions from the 7th and 8th century AD and received an award from Prince Sultan bin Salman, former president of SCT for his discoveries. There's obviously an incentive to hand in inscriptions. Um, obviously I don't want to slander the guy. Uh, but there's possibility if you knew what you were doing to create an inscription, especially when you get awarded, rewarded even for it. So, you can see I'm a little bit suspicious right off as there is no data on the description. The best we can do is place them within a contextual period.
6:19 So let's imagine that it's some period from the early 7th century right up to the 680s. Well, it's difficult to imagine that this inscription uh would have been created up to the period in which Christians viewed MMED as Jesus as evidenced by coins. So I think straight off barring a very unusual set of events and it's not impossible but barring that it seems like it would be a period after this period. Okay. What about the next periods 690 to 715 AD?
7:04 Well, if we look at an inscription from 691, this tombstone which I've covered before, it refers to the greatest calamity of the people of Islam is that which has fallen them on the death of Muhammad the prophet. You remember that one? Except that when we looked into this translation, it turned out to be dodgy. If we look at uh line two and three, indeed the greatest of the calamities of the people of the peace is the calamity with the prophet Mmed would probably be even better. The word calamity here is apocryphal and is about the day of judgment. So it's nothing about a past Muhammad or Mmed. It's a future day
7:51 and it actually doesn't even mention anything about the death of Muhammad. Also it is speaking in the present tense not in the past potentially in the future tense. The grist clam that can fall the people of peace is that which occurs with the prophet Makmmed. Seeing as Makmmed is an apocalyptic figure i.e for Christians he is Christ. An example of a proclamation about Christ. We proclaim your death. O Lord profess your resurrection until you come again. So it's in that vein. And if we look in the Quran itself, we see that the word for calamity is found in the title of surah 101,
8:37 alcaria, the calamity. It is also known as the striking. The surah discusses the end time and esquetology. And so the day of the calamity is what happens when the messiah, the mmed comes. So it's not a past thing, it's a future thing. So in that context, we kind of get the impression that Mmed here is referring to the return of Jesus. So can we say from 690 to 750 that the inscription about Muhammad and his wives, does that fit in with that period? I would say no, cuz people are still believing that the Mmed is Jesus by and far. There's an exception of
9:24 course the Jews believe that Nemiah bin Huzil is the Mmed but that's minority view. Then if we move to the next period what about 705715 we have this bilingual papyrus of a protocol uh found in the Egyptian National Library. And in terms of the contents here is the purported translation um the Arabic text is in italics. In the name of God the compassionate and merciful. In the name of God compassionate and merciful there is no God but God alone. Makmed is the apostle of God. There's no God but God alone. And then it's as soon as this Arabic
10:12 they go for Muhammad instead of Mmed is the messenger of God. uh the servant of God's alleid commander of the faithful. Now what Islamic awareness translates the Greek of line two is compassionate and merciful. It actually gets it wrong. Okay. So you can see that that word up there that's underlined here is all the Greek translated. The key bit is the first bit. In the name of God, you are merciful and philanthropic. Okay, why is that a problem? Why is it calling the one the inscription addresses as philanthropic? Who does the Bible describe as
10:58 philanthropic? Well, we can see from Titus 3:4, it is Jesus our savior and his love for mankind appeared. The inscription can therefore be inferred to refer to Jesus. So even in this bilingual text from as we saw go back 705 to 7:15 we can see that there in line two it's referring to in the name of God compassionate and philanthropic. Okay so it's referring to this person as philanthropic which is Jesus. There is no God but God alone. Mmmed is the apostle of God. Jesus is the apostle of God. It's saying
11:43 okay. So Mmed apostoo. Therefore when it says Mmed apostle of God it is also simply following biblical ideas about Jesus who sent by God the father. For example Exodus 23:20. Behold I send apistello. Okay. Do you see apistello? before you to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place of prayer is interceptant. John 6:29 Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God that you believe in him whom he has sent." Okay, apostell apostlan. So you can see that Jesus is
12:29 an apostle because he is sent by God the father. So therefore that inscription implies that it's to do with Jesus and not an Arabian prophet. So when we think of that inscription of Muhammad and his wives, does it feel like it's still in that period or a later period? I think it it points to it being a later period. So definitely after 7:15. So therefore, this inscription about Muhammad and his wives must come from a later period. Okay. How about the early 9th century before Iben Hisham's Sah, which came in the 820s? Okay. case of work we're being generous now from 7:15 to say 8:20 is it possible in that period well great way of seeing that is to look
13:15 at this inscription from 8:15 AD now see the difference here they did an inscription in the 9th century and they picked a nice clean piece of stone it's got damage there in the corner but other than that it's good clean piece of stone to do an inscription on not one that's badly damaged and irregular you know, but anyway, 8:15 AD, MMED used in conjunction with the first and the last. What does that sound like? Okay, so let's compare this one. Uh the 815 one is the one on the left, and this is uh the one that Muslims are claiming refers to Muhammad and his wives. You can see what a bad choice of rock they've they've chosen for this
14:02 inscription. like it's just so convenient that it's so hard to read because of the the material that they used here. But why did the inscriber choose such a bad rock to do an inscription on? That's a big question mark. So this 815 inscription is found in Jordan. There's the the um the latitude and longitude. Uh it comes from uh Ilka Lindstad's paper early Islamic inscriptions from northeast Jordan. And so we can see it says in the name of God the compassionate the merciful. Oh God extol Makmed among the first and bless him among the last. Okay it's not
14:47 saying he's the first and the last but it's implying the idea that Jesus is the first and last. Therefore Mmed number four. Oh God, what he has said, consider it true. And whom he has interceded for, except intercession. Okay, so it's again Jesus the intercessor is implied. Um, and here you have lots of biblical references. I believe Mmed here refers to Jesus, not Muhammad. Oh God, extol Makmed. Philippians 2:911. Therefore, God has highly exalted him whom he has interceded for. Romans 8:34 who is condemned Jesus Christ is the one who died more than that who was raised who is at the right hand of God who indeed
15:32 is interceding for us. Okay. So I think that implies that Jesus is Mmed and then further first and last that bit Revelation 1 17 to18 do not be afraid I'm the first and the last etc. And then there's a reference there in line seven. Not going to read all of it. And may he resurrect among them the lifeless. Again, something that you would typically see spoken about Jesus. So if we go back to the slide, what do I think about this uh inscription? Well, barring it not being a forgery, my first instinct would be that it's a
16:18 forgery of some kind. But barring that, I would say that this comes from a period after 820 AD. So, uh, middle to late 9th century onwards. Um, but my instinct says that it's a forgery. Uh, because it's just a little bit too convenient. Um, don't be surprised if suddenly this inscription gets shown again with a date added later. Um, that's what tends to happen with these inscriptions. So, that's it from me. I don't think this is a seventh or 8th century inscription. I think it's from uh post 820 AD and no earlier.
