Talk:Mujir al-Din
 | A fact from Mujir al-Din appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 12 March 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Influence
Thanks Huldra, for adding the Guy Le Strange book. I forgot how often Mujir al-Din is quoted by him. We should definitely have a section on the influence of his work on that of later historians that mentions his being extensively quoted in Le Strange, among others. This book mentions that excerpts of his work were published extensively by Joseph von Hammer-Purgstall, though Joseph Toussaint Reinaud questioned the accuracy of the translations. I've seen his name mentioned a million times elsewhere as well, but I'll have to dig around for more before composing that section. For now, I have to finish the writings section, which will focus in detail on the content of al-Uns al-Jalil. The description provided by Little makes me want to run out and get a copy. I will try to do that some day soon for my own benefit, if not that of Wikipedia's. :) Anyway, nice to see you around as always. Tiamuttalk 23:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well, Mujur al-Din was in fact the last name missing on my list (after Al Ameer son started Al-Dimashqi). According to LeStrange, a "H. Sauvaire" translated the work into French in 1876. ("Historie de Jerusalem et d'Hebron"). With luck, we could find it in the public domain (as Al-Dimashqi-work is), -Very glad you started this article..I think we have referred to him a zillion times on wp...Huldra (talk) 00:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I wish I could say I saw him on your list, but it's acutally a lucky coincidence, prompted by his coming up most recently in the research I did for the article on Sharafat, East Jerusalem. I'll continue adding to this article tomorrow (its 3am here and I should be in bed). I'll also try to find references to him in other articles to link to this one. I'm glad we finally have more information on who he was. That's thanks to Nableezy who procured the Little article, one of the few sources there are with biographical information on the person, rather than just references to his work. Thanks for your contributions and encouragement Huldra, Pleasure as always. Tiamuttalk 00:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I cannot find the French 1876-copy freely available, but here is a limited preview:
- Well, I wish I could say I saw him on your list, but it's acutally a lucky coincidence, prompted by his coming up most recently in the research I did for the article on Sharafat, East Jerusalem. I'll continue adding to this article tomorrow (its 3am here and I should be in bed). I'll also try to find references to him in other articles to link to this one. I'm glad we finally have more information on who he was. That's thanks to Nableezy who procured the Little article, one of the few sources there are with biographical information on the person, rather than just references to his work. Thanks for your contributions and encouragement Huldra, Pleasure as always. Tiamuttalk 00:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- In fact; the book is wholly available on the net!:
There is loads of stuff published by Joseph von Hammer-Purgstall freely available on archive.org! ....perhaps his Mujir al-Din-translations is there, too ...I'll keep looking...Huldra (talk) 02:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
family: Quttainah
- Yeah, I saw that. I was hoping to find a more scholarly source for it, but I suppose it could be included, attributed to its author. I'm going to add that then tomorrow, and also expand the writings section. There is a lot of detail from Mujir al-Din's book in Little's review of it (among others) that should be added before a DYK nom. Still have a couple of days to meet the five day deadline. Thanks for keeping me going Huldra. Tiamuttalk 21:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Writings ...from the time of Adam?
- The source for this is Little, Donald P. (April-June 1995). "Mujīr al-Dīn al-'Ulaymī's Vision of Jerusalem in the Ninth/Fifteenth Century". Journal of the American Oriental Society (American Oriental Society) 115 (2): 237-247. http://www.jstor.org/pss/604667. I have copy of it on my hard disk somewhere (which I cn find if necessary), but a google search shows that it does state "from the time of Adam through the Crusades". al-Din's book covers the history of the world, with a focus on Jerusalem, and early history covers much of the common biblical and Koranic traditions including the genesis story. Does this need to be made clearer? Tiamuttalk 20:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it should be made clearer. The two paragraphs of this sections seem to disagree with each other. The first mentions two books: one, a history of Adam through the middle ages and two, history focussed on Jerusalem, and it seems only the latter was published. In the second paragraph however, it then suddenly states that the first part of this Jerusalem book starts again with Adam. This is what I doubt. On the bottom of the first page of the source you presented it is also stated that Jerusalem was "…the town of our Lord, the friend of God, Abraham." - not Adam. And as I said, that French book from 1876 also has Abraham and not Adam in the title. Besides, the first chapter of this book begins all about Abraham - and not Adam. Alandeus (talk) 13:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Alandeus. It seems that Mujir al-Din's work does cover Adam in relation to Jerusalem. Little says this explicitly on page 239, and on page 240, he cites n extended excerpt from al-Din's work that supports this assertion. For example, Little writes:
Thus, when discussing the discrepant accounts of the foundation of Masjid Bayt al-Maqdis,23 he concludes that:"[t]he ancient noble hadith and these reports indicate that the building of David and Solomon, peace be upon them, was constructed on an ancient site, not that they were the founders but were the restorers. All the reports that have come down about the construction of al-Masjid al-Aqsa do not contradict each other, for it is probable that the construction of the angels came first and was renewed by Adam, peace be upon him. Then Shem, son of Noah, peace be upon them, then Jacob, son of Isaac, then David and Solomon. Between every one of these prophets there was a period in which it is likely that one would rebuild the previous building [...]"
- So there is no error, though the text in our article might include an excerpt like this to make clearer just how Adam fits into the picture drawn by Mujir al-Din. I'll try to do this in the coming days. Thanks for your interest in the topic. Tiamuttalk 13:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- I understand what you saying, but the source cited does not use the term "mythology". I tried to encapsulate the idea of this "history" being based on religious tradition in this sentence: "The first outlines the history of Jerusalem, and to a lesser degree Hebron, from the time of Adam to the end of 13th century, incorporating both political developments and events of importance to Islamic and pre-Islamic monotheistic traditions." Do you have a suggestion on how to rephrase to make it clearer that the "Adam" information is not pure history? Tiamuttalk 11:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Palestinian Historian?
Describing Mujir al-Din this way is a misleading anachronism. It would be like describing Sallust as an "Italian Historian", and not as a "Roman Historian". I doubt Mujir al-Din's "nisba" would be "al-Filastini" (the Palestinian). It would more likely be "al-Maqdisi" (the Jerusalemite). In his day, the word "Filastin" (Palestine) was used to describe a smaller area than what is today referred to as Palestine. For instance, Mujir al-Din considers Tabaria (Tiberias) as a different area than Filastin (Palestine). Today however Tiberias is considered part of Palestine.
Here's a relevant passage from his book :
وَقسمت الْأَوَائِل الشَّام خَمْسَة أَقسَام الشَّام الأولى فلسطين واوسط بَلَدهَا الرملة وَالشَّام الثَّانِيَة حوران ومدينتها الْعُظْمَى طبرية وَالشَّام الثَّالِثَة الغوطة ومدينتها الْعُظْمَى دمشق وَالشَّام الرَّابِعَة حمص وَالشَّام الْخَامِسَة قنسرين ومدينتها الْعُظْمَى حلب
I think a more accurate (yet still biased) description would be "historian of the land known today as Palestine". Perhaps it is best to say an "Historian from Jerusalem".
-C2B May 30, 2014
- Yeah, I saw that. I was hoping to find a more scholarly source for it, but I suppose it could be included, attributed to its author. I'm going to add that then tomorrow, and also expand the writings section. There is a lot of detail from Mujir al-Din's book in Little's review of it (among others) that should be added before a DYK nom. Still have a couple of days to meet the five day deadline. Thanks for keeping me going Huldra. Tiamuttalk 21:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Writings ...from the time of Adam?
- The source for this is Little, Donald P. (April-June 1995). "Mujīr al-Dīn al-'Ulaymī's Vision of Jerusalem in the Ninth/Fifteenth Century". Journal of the American Oriental Society (American Oriental Society) 115 (2): 237-247. http://www.jstor.org/pss/604667. I have copy of it on my hard disk somewhere (which I cn find if necessary), but a google search shows that it does state "from the time of Adam through the Crusades". al-Din's book covers the history of the world, with a focus on Jerusalem, and early history covers much of the common biblical and Koranic traditions including the genesis story. Does this need to be made clearer? Tiamuttalk 20:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it should be made clearer. The two paragraphs of this sections seem to disagree with each other. The first mentions two books: one, a history of Adam through the middle ages and two, history focussed on Jerusalem, and it seems only the latter was published. In the second paragraph however, it then suddenly states that the first part of this Jerusalem book starts again with Adam. This is what I doubt. On the bottom of the first page of the source you presented it is also stated that Jerusalem was "…the town of our Lord, the friend of God, Abraham." - not Adam. And as I said, that French book from 1876 also has Abraham and not Adam in the title. Besides, the first chapter of this book begins all about Abraham - and not Adam. Alandeus (talk) 13:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Alandeus. It seems that Mujir al-Din's work does cover Adam in relation to Jerusalem. Little says this explicitly on page 239, and on page 240, he cites n extended excerpt from al-Din's work that supports this assertion. For example, Little writes:
Thus, when discussing the discrepant accounts of the foundation of Masjid Bayt al-Maqdis,23 he concludes that:"[t]he ancient noble hadith and these reports indicate that the building of David and Solomon, peace be upon them, was constructed on an ancient site, not that they were the founders but were the restorers. All the reports that have come down about the construction of al-Masjid al-Aqsa do not contradict each other, for it is probable that the construction of the angels came first and was renewed by Adam, peace be upon him. Then Shem, son of Noah, peace be upon them, then Jacob, son of Isaac, then David and Solomon. Between every one of these prophets there was a period in which it is likely that one would rebuild the previous building [...]"
- So there is no error, though the text in our article might include an excerpt like this to make clearer just how Adam fits into the picture drawn by Mujir al-Din. I'll try to do this in the coming days. Thanks for your interest in the topic. Tiamuttalk 13:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- I understand what you saying, but the source cited does not use the term "mythology". I tried to encapsulate the idea of this "history" being based on religious tradition in this sentence: "The first outlines the history of Jerusalem, and to a lesser degree Hebron, from the time of Adam to the end of 13th century, incorporating both political developments and events of importance to Islamic and pre-Islamic monotheistic traditions." Do you have a suggestion on how to rephrase to make it clearer that the "Adam" information is not pure history? Tiamuttalk 11:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Palestinian Historian?
- The source for this is Little, Donald P. (April-June 1995). "Mujīr al-Dīn al-'Ulaymī's Vision of Jerusalem in the Ninth/Fifteenth Century". Journal of the American Oriental Society (American Oriental Society) 115 (2): 237-247. http://www.jstor.org/pss/604667. I have copy of it on my hard disk somewhere (which I cn find if necessary), but a google search shows that it does state "from the time of Adam through the Crusades". al-Din's book covers the history of the world, with a focus on Jerusalem, and early history covers much of the common biblical and Koranic traditions including the genesis story. Does this need to be made clearer? Tiamuttalk 20:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it should be made clearer. The two paragraphs of this sections seem to disagree with each other. The first mentions two books: one, a history of Adam through the middle ages and two, history focussed on Jerusalem, and it seems only the latter was published. In the second paragraph however, it then suddenly states that the first part of this Jerusalem book starts again with Adam. This is what I doubt. On the bottom of the first page of the source you presented it is also stated that Jerusalem was "…the town of our Lord, the friend of God, Abraham." - not Adam. And as I said, that French book from 1876 also has Abraham and not Adam in the title. Besides, the first chapter of this book begins all about Abraham - and not Adam. Alandeus (talk) 13:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Alandeus. It seems that Mujir al-Din's work does cover Adam in relation to Jerusalem. Little says this explicitly on page 239, and on page 240, he cites n extended excerpt from al-Din's work that supports this assertion. For example, Little writes:
Thus, when discussing the discrepant accounts of the foundation of Masjid Bayt al-Maqdis,23 he concludes that:"[t]he ancient noble hadith and these reports indicate that the building of David and Solomon, peace be upon them, was constructed on an ancient site, not that they were the founders but were the restorers. All the reports that have come down about the construction of al-Masjid al-Aqsa do not contradict each other, for it is probable that the construction of the angels came first and was renewed by Adam, peace be upon him. Then Shem, son of Noah, peace be upon them, then Jacob, son of Isaac, then David and Solomon. Between every one of these prophets there was a period in which it is likely that one would rebuild the previous building [...]"
- So there is no error, though the text in our article might include an excerpt like this to make clearer just how Adam fits into the picture drawn by Mujir al-Din. I'll try to do this in the coming days. Thanks for your interest in the topic. Tiamuttalk 13:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Alandeus. It seems that Mujir al-Din's work does cover Adam in relation to Jerusalem. Little says this explicitly on page 239, and on page 240, he cites n extended excerpt from al-Din's work that supports this assertion. For example, Little writes:
- I understand what you saying, but the source cited does not use the term "mythology". I tried to encapsulate the idea of this "history" being based on religious tradition in this sentence: "The first outlines the history of Jerusalem, and to a lesser degree Hebron, from the time of Adam to the end of 13th century, incorporating both political developments and events of importance to Islamic and pre-Islamic monotheistic traditions." Do you have a suggestion on how to rephrase to make it clearer that the "Adam" information is not pure history? Tiamuttalk 11:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Palestinian Historian?
Describing Mujir al-Din this way is a misleading anachronism. It would be like describing Sallust as an "Italian Historian", and not as a "Roman Historian". I doubt Mujir al-Din's "nisba" would be "al-Filastini" (the Palestinian). It would more likely be "al-Maqdisi" (the Jerusalemite). In his day, the word "Filastin" (Palestine) was used to describe a smaller area than what is today referred to as Palestine. For instance, Mujir al-Din considers Tabaria (Tiberias) as a different area than Filastin (Palestine). Today however Tiberias is considered part of Palestine.
Here's a relevant passage from his book : وَقسمت الْأَوَائِل الشَّام خَمْسَة أَقسَام الشَّام الأولى فلسطين واوسط بَلَدهَا الرملة وَالشَّام الثَّانِيَة حوران ومدينتها الْعُظْمَى طبرية وَالشَّام الثَّالِثَة الغوطة ومدينتها الْعُظْمَى دمشق وَالشَّام الرَّابِعَة حمص وَالشَّام الْخَامِسَة قنسرين ومدينتها الْعُظْمَى حلب
I think a more accurate (yet still biased) description would be "historian of the land known today as Palestine". Perhaps it is best to say an "Historian from Jerusalem".
-C2B May 30, 2014