Results 1 to 30 of 30

Thread: The non-existence of Muhammad

  1. #1
    Subthigh Socionics Is A Cult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,248
    Mentioned
    513 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default The non-existence of Muhammad

    My fave book on this is Did Muhammad Exist: An Inquiry into Islam's Obscure Origins by Robert Spencer, especially the "Revised and Expanded Edition"

    The books summary is as follows:

    A Revisionist Scenario

    After the investigations of the preceding chapters, here is what we know about the traditional account of Muhammad’s life and the early days of Islam:

    • No record of Muhammad’s reported death in 632 appears until more than a century after that date.

    • A Christian account apparently dating from the mid-630s speaks of an Arab prophet “armed with a sword” who seems to be still alive.

    • The early accounts written by the people the Arabs conquered never mention Islam, Muhammad, or the Qur’an. They call the conquerors “Ishmaelites,” “Saracens,” “Muhajirun,”
    and “Hagarians,” but never “Muslims.”

    • The Arab conquerors, in their coins and inscriptions, don’t mention Islam or the Qur’an for the first six decades of their conquests. Mentions of “Muhammad” are nonspecific and on at least two occasions are accompanied by a cross. The word “Muhammad” can be used both as a proper name and as an honorific.

    • The Qur’an, even by the canonical Muslim account, was not distributed in its present form until the 650s. Contradicting that standard account is the fact that neither the Arabians nor the Christians and Jews in the region mention the Qur’an until the early eighth century.

    • The Qur’an contains numerous characters and stories that have been taken over from Judaism, Christianity, and other sources.

    • The Qur’an contains a great many words that make little or no sense in Arabic, but are clearly derived from Syro-Aramaic, or become clear when they are read as Syro-Aramaic. Even the Arabic words for the Five Pillars of Islam are derived from Syriac and Hebrew.

    • During the reign of the caliph Muawiya (661–680), the Arabs constructed at least one public building whose inscription was headed by a cross.

    • We begin hearing about Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, and about Islam itself in the 690s, during the reign of the caliph Abd al-Malik. Coins and inscriptions reflecting Islamic beliefs begin to appear at this time also.

    • Around the same time as the reign of Abd al-Malik, Arabic became the predominant written language of the Arabian empire, supplanting Syriac and Greek.

    • Abd al-Malik claimed, in a passing remark in one hadith, to have collected the Qur’an, contradicting Islamic tradition that the collection was the work of the caliph Uthman forty years earlier.

    • Multiple hadiths report that Hajjaj ibn Yusuf, governor of Iraq during the reign of Abd al-Malik, edited the Qur’an and distributed his new edition to the various Arab-controlled provinces—again, something Uthman is supposed to have done decades earlier.

    • Even some Islamic traditions maintains that certain common Islamic practices, such as the recitation of the Qur’an during mosque prayers, date from orders of Hajjaj ibn Yusuf, not to the earliest period of Islamic history.

    • While the canonical Islamic account holds that Muhammad was born in Mecca, which was a thriving center for trade and pilgrimage, the extant records show that during the time Muhammad is supposed to have lived, it was not a city of any importance.

    • Although the directive to Muslims to pray toward Mecca is supposed to have been revealed during Muhammad’s time, the earliest mosques were built facing Petra in Jordan, up until the early years of the eighth century. Some of these ancient mosques face Petra to this day.

    • In the middle of the eighth century, the Abbasid dynasty supplanted the Umayyad line of Abd al-Malik. The Abbasids charged the Umayyads with impiety on a large scale. In the Abbasid period, biographical material about Muhammad began to proliferate. The first complete biography of the prophet of Islam finally appeared during this era—nearly 150 years after the traditional date of his death.

    • The proliferation of hadith literature, including biographical material about Muhammad, reached its zenith in the ninth century, over two hundred years after Muhammad is traditionally said to have died.

    • The biographical material that emerged situates Muhammad in an area of Arabia that never was the center for trade and pilgrimage that the canonical account of Islam’s origins depends on it to be.

    In short, the lack of confirming detail in the historical record, the late development of biographical material about the Islamic prophet, the atmosphere of political and religious factionalism in which that material developed, and much more beyond suggest that the Muhammad of Islamic tradition did not exist, or if he did, he was substantially different from how that tradition portrays him.

    How to make sense of all this? If the Arab forces who conquered so much territory beginning in the 630s were not energized by the teachings of a new prophet and the divine word he delivered, how did the Islamic character of their empire arise at all? If Muhammad did not exist, why was it ever considered necessary to invent him?

    Any answer to these questions will of necessity be conjectural—but in light of the facts above, so is the canonical account of Islam’s origins.
    I recommend the pfanderfilms Youtube channel for a lot of content about why we should doubt the existence of Muhammad, and many claims about early Islam. It's from the bias of a Christian, but I generally find it difficult to dispute the claimed facts put forward:
    https://www.youtube.com/@pfanderfilms

    I also recommend the MythVisionPodcast Youtube channel for a lot of content about skepitical about religious claims generally:
    https://www.youtube.com/@MythVisionPodcast

    I'll try to post some of my favourite videos here at some point, and maybe passages from various books depending how the discussion goes.
    Last edited by Socionics Is A Cult; 12-10-2023 at 01:23 AM.

  2. #2
    Subthigh Socionics Is A Cult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,248
    Mentioned
    513 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default








  3. #3
    Subthigh Socionics Is A Cult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,248
    Mentioned
    513 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default








  4. #4
    Subthigh Socionics Is A Cult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,248
    Mentioned
    513 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default








  5. #5
    Darth Slavius godslave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2022
    Location
    Southern France
    TIM
    694 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,780
    Mentioned
    141 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    15,766
    Mentioned
    1404 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    There are always reasons to doubt in anything.
    More important is a proof for something. The longer time events were - the lesser trusty sources which are known will be.
    In case someone will publish a quality proof that there was no Muhammad or @Subteigh, - that would be interesting.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    15,766
    Mentioned
    1404 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    In Mahometanism is overtouchy relation to seen body of people, what is explaned there as provoking to "bad behavior". Mainly this is applied to women, which may be demanded to have as closed even hairs and the face. As a comparision, in today Europe culture the limitation to show women breasts would be same strange for nowdays wild tribes of forrests, islands and in Africa.

    This have reminded recent behavior of Alive / @Awake, who felt strangely annoyed and produced inadequate fantasies by thoughts and pictures of women having lack of clothes. This also was matched with his negative emotional relation (his base F) and probably was an unconscious try to protect his weak S region in "dangerous situations".

    Sexual attractions have much relation to Si. The least adequate processing of info is expected in weak and nonvalued functional regions, what is for Ni types.

    The both Muhammed and Alive I suspect to have EIE.
    An interesting case when problems of people are same what were thousands years ago and in very differing cultures. The similarity in Jung types appeared as more meaningful.

  8. #8

  9. #9
    Seed my wickedness The Reality Denialist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Spontaneous Human Combustion
    TIM
    EIE-C-Ni ™
    Posts
    8,344
    Mentioned
    354 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I just bothered to listen Quran. The main thing I was able to grasp was a message of submission, sometimes having damming tones, sometimes genocidal tones towards non-submissive. Anyway, to me the historicity of this dude seems rather meaningless as it just seems figurative.
    MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
    Winning is for losers

     

    Sincerely yours,
    idiosyncratic type
    Life is a joke but do you have a life?

    Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org

  10. #10
    necrosebud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    whatever
    TIM
    human
    Posts
    1,564
    Mentioned
    96 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yeah sounds like what I’ve skimmed of the book

    and also kinda sounds like religion

    sometimes the fact that there are so many aspects like this (submit or be damned) is considered healthy or rational in any way scares me



  11. #11

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    5,875
    Mentioned
    545 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Enters Laughing

    To be honest I don't really understand the point of threads/discussions like these. Religion requires deception: that's the conclusion anyone willing to think honestly about the topic will come to. And any such person more or less familiar with the history (or lack of history in this case) of Islam will realize quickly that Mohammed is the same kind of person as the Buddha, Lycurgus, King Arthur, or Paul Bunyan. The only people who wouldn't think so are people who don't have rational reasons for their beliefs in the first place, and I doubt you're going to be able to convince of anything.

    If there's an exception, it would be Jesus, just for the fact that modern biblical scholars are virtually unanimous in their opposition to mythicism. I don't think their reasons are very good, or there's a shred more evidence for a historical Jesus than a historical Mohammed, and I think why they say such a thing has to do more with ideological, social, and financial incentives than honest thought (just witnessing the hammed-up condescension and derision with which people like Bart Ehrman treat mythicism reveals that there's something more than dispassionate analysis going on), but someone unfamiliar with the subject will tend to accept the opinion of the "experts" in that.

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    5,875
    Mentioned
    545 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by necrosebud View Post
    Yeah sounds like what I’ve skimmed of the book

    and also kinda sounds like religion

    sometimes the fact that there are so many aspects like this (submit or be damned) is considered healthy or rational in any way scares me
    Are you going to form and popularize your own values system? Based on what? Is rationality "healthy?" Does it make you or anyone else less depressed, anxious, neurotic? Jihadists aren't posting on psychology forums trying to figure out what's wrong with them.

  14. #14
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    16,609
    Mentioned
    1585 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreelancePoliceman View Post
    @Enters Laughing

    To be honest I don't really understand the point of threads/discussions like these. Religion requires deception: that's the conclusion anyone willing to think honestly about the topic will come to. And any such person more or less familiar with the history (or lack of history in this case) of Islam will realize quickly that Mohammed is the same kind of person as the Buddha, Lycurgus, King Arthur, or Paul Bunyan. The only people who wouldn't think so are people who don't have rational reasons for their beliefs in the first place, and I doubt you're going to be able to convince of anything.

    If there's an exception, it would be Jesus, just for the fact that modern biblical scholars are virtually unanimous in their opposition to mythicism. I don't think their reasons are very good, or there's a shred more evidence for a historical Jesus than a historical Mohammed, and I think why they say such a thing has to do more with ideological, social, and financial incentives than honest thought (just witnessing the hammed-up condescension and derision with which people like Bart Ehrman treat mythicism reveals that there's something more than dispassionate analysis going on), but someone unfamiliar with the subject will tend to accept the opinion of the "experts" in that.
    Quoted for greatness and intellectual clarity.

  15. #15
    Subthigh Socionics Is A Cult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,248
    Mentioned
    513 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreelancePoliceman View Post
    @Enters Laughing

    To be honest I don't really understand the point of threads/discussions like these. Religion requires deception: that's the conclusion anyone willing to think honestly about the topic will come to. And any such person more or less familiar with the history (or lack of history in this case) of Islam will realize quickly that Mohammed is the same kind of person as the Buddha, Lycurgus, King Arthur, or Paul Bunyan. The only people who wouldn't think so are people who don't have rational reasons for their beliefs in the first place, and I doubt you're going to be able to convince of anything.

    If there's an exception, it would be Jesus, just for the fact that modern biblical scholars are virtually unanimous in their opposition to mythicism. I don't think their reasons are very good, or there's a shred more evidence for a historical Jesus than a historical Mohammed, and I think why they say such a thing has to do more with ideological, social, and financial incentives than honest thought (just witnessing the hammed-up condescension and derision with which people like Bart Ehrman treat mythicism reveals that there's something more than dispassionate analysis going on), but someone unfamiliar with the subject will tend to accept the opinion of the "experts" in that.
    While I think it's more difficult to persuade someone away from superstition and views generally that are not based in reason by using evidence, I still had some successful experiences.

    I like to think that even if people have no irrational interest in believing in Muhammad, Jesus, Socionics etc. that my raising of skeptical arguments against will encourage others to be wary of tentatively accepting the claims of their adherents simply because the majority of people in the past have tentatively accepted that there must be some factual basis behind the superstition.

  16. #16
    Subthigh Socionics Is A Cult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,248
    Mentioned
    513 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Let the Stones Speak: Archaeology Challenges Islam by Dan Gibson - a good, free book available for download that destroys the Standard Islamic Narrative.

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    2,119
    Mentioned
    55 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Socionics Is A Cult View Post
    Let the Stones Speak: Archaeology Challenges Islam by Dan Gibson - a good, free book available for download that destroys the Standard Islamic Narrative.
    @sub, after the covid debacle I gave up trying to share and convince people of things. But I applaud your research. Organized religion isn't about spirituality, its about politics.

  18. #18

    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    5,875
    Mentioned
    545 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by timber View Post
    @sub, after the covid debacle I gave up trying to share and convince people of things. But I applaud your research. Organized religion isn't about spirituality, its about politics.
    What is "spirituality" to you? Is it something you try to find yourself?

  19. #19
    Darth Slavius godslave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2022
    Location
    Southern France
    TIM
    694 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,780
    Mentioned
    141 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Socionics Is A Cult View Post
    Let the Stones Speak: Archaeology Challenges Islam by Dan Gibson - a good, free book available for download that destroys the Standard Islamic Narrative.
    Thanks for the book !

    Now, Dan Gibson as far as I know is not an Academic historian although he is presented as a Historian in the book preface (?). He's an Author and a History aficionado and incidentally a revisionist who questions some aspects of the mainstream History namely the Origin of Islam . In that sense he reminds me of Michael Cremo or some of the guys you can see on the "Ancient Aliens" Tv show or hear in the "Coast to Coast AM" broadcast.

    That said, I haven't read properly his book (I just took a mental image and overview of it) but in chapter seven of the book he seems to focus on Al Hajjaj Ibn Yussuf reforms and its influence (exaggerated imho) to further support his "Petra as the origin of Islam" theory. In this case by establishing a rather intricate connection between Al Hajjaj Ibn Yussuf reforms and the Aramaic language essentially on the basis of the work of Arthur Jeffrey "The Qur’an as Scripture" (I will try to get that book if I can find it).

    Fascinating ! However, I would argue that in Islam there is a whole discipline dedicated to the study of the Quran and its different Qira'at (Seven major plus three minor) of which the main way of transmission and teaching were oral (memorization by heart) and spread throughout the empire during the Umayyad caliphate and predate the reign of Abd Al Malik Ibn Marwan and Al Hajjaj reformes. So I'm not sure but I suspect that there might be some anachronisms there, I would have to check the book.

    I mean, everybody in the arabic world knows who Al Hajjaj Ibn Yussuf was and what he did. He is indeed a very infamous figure that has been depicted countless times in the arabic pop culture (TV Dramas and Movies) often by great actors.

    Now, Just go on Youtube and search for "Response to refuting Dan Gibson" and you'll find a whole bunch of videos in which different historians and scholars (both Muslims and non-Muslims) doing just that.

    That said, Dan Gibson from what I've seen of his book, didn't seem to advocate for the non-existence of Muhammad (SAWS).

    I consider myself as a non-believer Muslim (Muslim ghair Mu'min), I practice Islam since I was a kid basically and I can't stop that practice because I have a bit of OCD, I want to preserve what is left of my mental sanity and incidentally I'm godslave. That said, personally and in all objectivity (I hope), I don't think that the existence of Mohammed (SAWS) is that questionable.

    First of all it goes against the Historians consensus about the historicity of Muhammad, and that consensus constitutes the authority on that matter. it is therefore historically wrong from the Academic standpoint. In that sense, one could say that the non-existence of Muhammad (SAWS) is at best a very minority opinion. I mean the Muhammad (SAWS) case is not like that of Homer, Moses, Jesus... Marco Polo and many other "Historical" figures of whom the historicity is seriously debated among Historians.

  20. #20
    Subthigh Socionics Is A Cult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,248
    Mentioned
    513 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    @godslave I think the evidence he presents is convincing, and I think the traditional account about Muhammad and Islam is predominantly written by Muslims, so are not true independent accounts. Christianity has a similar problem. They claim their texts are eyewitness accounts, but they were probably written much later.

    With Islam, I think it's most likely that it was originally a Christian sect amongst the Arabs, with Muhammad being a title given to Jesus, although many people throughout history were given that honorary title. I think a lot of biographical details for Muhammad may have come from real figures.

    I think it's very difficult to abandon a culture or a background you were brought up in - I was raised as a Christian myself, even when I stopped believing around the age of 7.

    Dan Gibson mostly focuses on the history of Mecca, and its significance in Islam. Jay Smith of the @pfanderfilms channel on Youtube makes the point (which I think is accurate), that if the Islamic account behind any one of the three of the Quran, Muhammad, and Mecca is shown to be false, then Islam is false. I think academics are especially careful not to say things publically about Muhammad or the Quran, and are even careful concerning Mecca - Patricia Crone got a lot of threats her way for what she observed about Mecca.

    If what I believe about Christianity and Islam is true, then most of the world spend a lot of energy believing in something that isn't true, which bothers me a lot.

  21. #21
    Darth Slavius godslave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2022
    Location
    Southern France
    TIM
    694 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,780
    Mentioned
    141 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Socionics Is A Cult View Post
    @godslave I think the evidence he presents is convincing, and I think the traditional account about Muhammad and Islam is predominantly written by Muslims, so are not true independent accounts. Christianity has a similar problem. They claim their texts are eyewitness accounts, but they were probably written much later.
    Indeed, it is normal for a civilisation to write its own history. I mean, are we going to doubt the work of the quasi totally of Historians of antiquity on that basis ? Besides written texts although extremely important, aren't always the only sources upon which a serious historian work is based on.

    As for the Christianity vs Islam history problems, I would say that there is a major difference, namely Islam is expansionist (mainly by conquests) and that expansionism expressed itself right away in its very beginning while Muhammad (SAWS) was still alive. Also, note that there is also a difference in terms of social structure and historical context between the advent of Christianity and Islam. Christianity really began after the first Council of Nicea in 325, there is around 293 years of blurred time Gap between Jesus crucifixion and the de facto christian Empire existence. To give you an idea, 293 years after the first caliphate established in Medina in 632, the Abbasid Caliphate (from 750 to sirca 1258) was already established since 118 years. As you can see, there is much more to cover historically (more material and major events) in that 293 years period in the Islamic world, that already constitutes a better historical traceability.

    With Islam, I think it's most likely that it was originally a Christian sect amongst the Arabs, with Muhammad being a title given to Jesus, although many people throughout history were given that honorary title. I think a lot of biographical details for Muhammad may have come from real figures.
    Although both Jewish and Christians did exist in the Arab world at that time, It is unlikely that Islam might have been originally a Christian Sect. Arabs sociology is based on tribes (clans and "houses"), one must be familiar with these systems. There isn't a trace that prove or elude to any king of Christian sect in the Quraysh branch Muhammad (saws) belonged to (namely Banu Hashim see also this ).As far as I know, Pre-Islamic Arab tribes who converted to Christianity don't come from Fihr ibn Malik Branch.

    I think it's very difficult to abandon a culture or a background you were brought up in - I was raised as a Christian myself, even when I stopped believing around the age of 7.
    That's true. I would say that I wanted to believe when I was kid but the conflict was already there. It came from the fact that I was raised in a double culture I have a mixed cultural background. I've always had a "rational mind" that is very sensible to contradictions so I doubted all the time. Also it was weird to see myself as more merciful than "God". I wasn't seriously into Islam before the age 11, that's when my father became seriously into Islam and imposed its practice at home...

    Dan Gibson mostly focuses on the history of Mecca, and its significance in Islam. Jay Smith of the @pfanderfilms channel on Youtube makes the point (which I think is accurate), that if the Islamic account behind any one of the three of the Quran, Muhammad, and Mecca is shown to be false, then Islam is false. I think academics are especially careful not to say things publically about Muhammad or the Quran, and are even careful concerning Mecca - Patricia Crone got a lot of threats her way for what she observed about Mecca.
    Fair enough, I will try to take a better look at Dan Gibson work if I can.

    I don't know what "Islam is false" means, that sounds like a nonsense to me. Islam is the Muslims, period. Without Muslims there is no Islam but since Muslim do exist therefore Islam do exist. Even If "False" means "untrue"in that instance, that doesn't disqualify the existence of Islam only its legitimacy in terms of belief system. Most people believe what their parents believe(d) anyway. All of it is absurd as far as I'm concerned, we created the Gods in our image, the rest is literature. Humanity just believe in spiritual things because it needs it, it brings stability and a little bit of hope.

    I agree that criticizing Islam even in academics circles can be very problematic especially nowadays. However, most academics do it all the time and debates about Religions including Islam are going everyday since a very long time. To me, it doesn't make sense to use fanatics threats as an argument to substantiate an elledge restriction to present evidences that go against the consensus. Historian must do their job without fear, it is the responsibility of the state to guarantee their security and provide a special one if need be.

    If what I believe about Christianity and Islam is true, then most of the world spend a lot of energy believing in something that isn't true, which bothers me a lot.
    I see what you mean. Personally it doesn't bother me, let people believe what makes their life easier to live as long as they don't try to impose their beliefs on others in any way. Indeed, Religious prozelitism bothers me a lot !

  22. #22

    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    5,875
    Mentioned
    545 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Socionics Is A Cult

    I don't know much myself about this, but I took a class on early Islamic history in undergrad, and my professor/books expressed the opinion that Islam likely arose from Jewish contact (rather than Christian). Islam's dietary and other laws are similar to Judaism's, there's a shared reverence for the written word that didn't really exist in the same way with Christians at the time, Jerusalem seems to have been the original direction in which Muslims prayed, Islam's own traditions indicate more contact with Jews than Christians, they share a firm monotheism (rather than acceptance of the Trinity); the only real Christian element I can think of is acknowledgement of Jesus, and even he is just treated more or less as another prophet in the Jewish tradition. Wouldn't it make more sense to see Islam as a deviant Judaism?

  23. #23
    Darth Slavius godslave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2022
    Location
    Southern France
    TIM
    694 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,780
    Mentioned
    141 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreelancePoliceman View Post
    @Socionics Is A Cult

    I don't know much myself about this, but I took a class on early Islamic history in undergrad, and my professor/books expressed the opinion that Islam likely arose from Jewish contact (rather than Christian). Islam's dietary and other laws are similar to Judaism's, there's a shared reverence for the written word that didn't really exist in the same way with Christians at the time, Jerusalem seems to have been the original direction in which Muslims prayed, Islam's own traditions indicate more contact with Jews than Christians, they share a firm monotheism (rather than acceptance of the Trinity); the only real Christian element I can think of is acknowledgement of Jesus, and even he is just treated more or less as another prophet in the Jewish tradition. Wouldn't it make more sense to see Islam as a deviant Judaism?
    There are all deviants of zoroastrianism !

    Yes, I agree that Islam is in many ways closer to Judaism than Christianity although if we extrapolate a bit we could see elements from Christianity in Islam the most obvious being the integration of Jesus story (albeit very slightly modified) in the Islamic canon (The Quran). The less obvious being a quasi trinity between Allah, The Prophet and the Archangel Gabriel who is often referred to as the "ruh al qudus" (The Holy spirit (spiritus sanctus)). Also the fact that in sunni Islam the four first caliphs ( Abu Bakr, Umar ibn al-Khattab, Uthman ibn Affan and Ali ibn Abi Talib) (the Rashidun) were kinda special, a parallel can be drawn with the Four Evangelists (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John).
    Lack is the Muse of all Poets

  24. #24
    Subthigh Socionics Is A Cult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,248
    Mentioned
    513 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    @godslave

    The Quran has passages in it that exist in earlier Syro-Aramaic homilies to Jesus (this video covers it somewhat: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sd1isjyhihk. I think Islam and Muhammad were created when the Arabs wanted a religion of their own to rival that of the Christian Byzantines they came in contact with. Some of the Arab coins of the 7th century have crosses on them for example, in imitation of Byzantine coins, which would be an odd thing to put on a coin if you were a Muslim who denied the divinity of Jesus. There are various inconsistencies in the traditional Islamic account that I think shows Islam to have a fabricated history.

    Quote Originally Posted by godslave View Post
    I don't know what "Islam is false" means, that sounds like a nonsense to me. Islam is the Muslims, period. Without Muslims there is no Islam but since Muslim do exist therefore Islam do exist. Even If "False" means "untrue"in that instance, that doesn't disqualify the existence of Islam only its legitimacy in terms of belief system. Most people believe what their parents believe(d) anyway. All of it is absurd as far as I'm concerned, we created the Gods in our image, the rest is literature. Humanity just believe in spiritual things because it needs it, it brings stability and a little bit of hope.
    I think "Islam is false" from a secular perspective, based on what I think are fatal errors in its historical claims. I don't say that based on spiritual claims.

  25. #25
    Subthigh Socionics Is A Cult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,248
    Mentioned
    513 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreelancePoliceman View Post
    @Socionics Is A Cult

    I don't know much myself about this, but I took a class on early Islamic history in undergrad, and my professor/books expressed the opinion that Islam likely arose from Jewish contact (rather than Christian). Islam's dietary and other laws are similar to Judaism's, there's a shared reverence for the written word that didn't really exist in the same way with Christians at the time, Jerusalem seems to have been the original direction in which Muslims prayed, Islam's own traditions indicate more contact with Jews than Christians, they share a firm monotheism (rather than acceptance of the Trinity); the only real Christian element I can think of is acknowledgement of Jesus, and even he is just treated more or less as another prophet in the Jewish tradition. Wouldn't it make more sense to see Islam as a deviant Judaism?
    I think they must have been in contact with both Christian and Jewish thought, because they include both Christian and Jewish myths in their own myths, and in their central text. The Muslims wanted to see themselves as distinct from the Byzantine Christians they were fighting against, and a smaller population of Jews.

    "Muhammad" is likely just a title meaning "praiseworthy" that was originally applied to Jesus by the Christians and later the Muslims (although that title had been used for more than a thousand years prior by various groups), so Jesus was originally a central figure to Islam. Over time, Jesus and "Muhammad" became two separate figures to the Muslims. I've posted a few videos that cover this in this thread, I'd hate to pick out one specifically that covers this point.

  26. #26

  27. #27
    Darth Slavius godslave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2022
    Location
    Southern France
    TIM
    694 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,780
    Mentioned
    141 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Socionics Is A Cult View Post
    @godslave

    The Quran has passages in it that exist in earlier Syro-Aramaic homilies to Jesus (this video covers it somewhat: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sd1isjyhihk. I think Islam and Muhammad were created when the Arabs wanted a religion of their own to rival that of the Christian Byzantines they came in contact with. Some of the Arab coins of the 7th century have crosses on them for example, in imitation of Byzantine coins, which would be an odd thing to put on a coin if you were a Muslim who denied the divinity of Jesus. There are various inconsistencies in the traditional Islamic account that I think shows Islam to have a fabricated history.
    Well, I haven't watched that video yet but my theory for the advent of Islam is that the political context of the time called for the creation of a powerful state. The Arabian Peninsula was under the threats of conquest by one of two neighboring empires. Byzantium to the west and the Persians to the east. The economic and cultural sovereignty of the Arabs, especially the ruling classes of the great tribes, was therefore also threatened. As these tribes were in competition with each other, it was first necessary to reunite them in a great alliance. From a strategic point of view, a religious reform (monotheism) was an excellent way of uniting these tribes and creating a large army capable of resisting the threats of adjacent empires. Islam became an empire, by first defeating both the Byzantines and the Persians and then expands its territory throughout history.

    As for the Islam being a fabricating History (which is different from "story"), I think that no matter the inconsistencies one might perceive, they don't constitute a definitive proof to claim that Islam is a fabricated history, I mean what purpose such fabrication (a conspiracy really) would serve ? I don't know about the Arab coins you mentioned but if true, then there must be another explanation like for instance that these coins might have been temporarily modified during a period of transition during which Byzantines coins circulated because of their intrinsic value as gold and silver (?) coins. Maybe these "Arab coins" are "collectors" you know like rare pieces I don't know. Again claiming that Islam is a fabricated history based on that would be a nonsense imho.


    I think "Islam is false" from a secular perspective, based on what I think are fatal errors in its historical claims. I don't say that based on spiritual claims.
    Okay, that's a form of historical revisionism. Ancient Aliens Theory is one too. But Fair enough !
    Lack is the Muse of all Poets

  28. #28
    Subthigh Socionics Is A Cult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,248
    Mentioned
    513 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    @godslave having your own religion would be very useful to have power over people and to unify them, including when fighting external enemies.

    I don't want to seem irrational like those who think aliens influenced ancient civilizations, but I can understand that I might seem that way! I hold a view that most people on a topic most people (in the West anyway) don't have a view on, or they tentatively accept the historical claims that Muslims make. But I do so after reading and seeing quite a lot of evidence on the matter: certainly a lot more than most Muslims who I doubt examine the matter critically like a historian or an archaeologist might.

  29. #29
    Subthigh Socionics Is A Cult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,248
    Mentioned
    513 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    @godslave
    • The Arab conquerors, in their coins and inscriptions, don’t mention Islam or the Qur’an for the first six decades of their conquests. Mentions of “Muhammad” are nonspecific and on at least two occasions are accompanied by a cross. The word “Muhammad” can be used both as a proper name and as an honorific.
    Did Muhammad Exist: An Inquiry into Islam's Obscure Origins by Robert Spencer


  30. #30
    Darth Slavius godslave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2022
    Location
    Southern France
    TIM
    694 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,780
    Mentioned
    141 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Socionics Is A Cult View Post
    @godslave having your own religion would be very useful to have power over people and to unify them, including when fighting external enemies.
    Yes, that's precisely what I was saying !

    I don't want to seem irrational like those who think aliens influenced ancient civilizations, but I can understand that I might seem that way! I hold a view that most people on a topic most people (in the West anyway) don't have a view on, or they tentatively accept the historical claims that Muslims make. But I do so after reading and seeing quite a lot of evidence on the matter: certainly a lot more than most Muslims who I doubt examine the matter critically like a historian or an archaeologist might.
    There is nothing wrong in being irrational, I like Alien Theory it's very entertaining (plus I was into Ufology myself so... ).

    Historians don't rely exclusively on historical claims that Muslims make. I mean, that's not serious to believe that . I agree however that adhering to a belief system like any Organized religion obviously induces a bias (or propensity) in terms of objectivity and critical thinking.
    Lack is the Muse of all Poets

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •