Islam - The Untold Story.

Bannasidhe

Anyone watching this on Channel 4?

Very interesting but weather conditions are interferring with the Sky signal so it keeps breaking up on me.

It's nerdy historians fight back against the myths so this nerdy historian is loving it (when I can see it!)

Nodin

So its like "The Mummy" then?

Bannasidhe

Nodin wrote: »

So its like "The Mummy" then?

No. It's watchable .

They're currently discussing why Islam couldn't have started in Mecca.

Sulla Felix

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Nodin wrote: »

So its like "The Mummy" then?

No. It's watchable .

They're currently discussing why Islam couldn't have started in Mecca.

I only ever heard that it started when muhammed had some dreams off in the desert?

Sarky

I wish dead one was still about...




Haha, not really.

Bannasidhe

Sulla Felix wrote: »

I only ever heard that it started when muhammed had some dreams off in the desert?

That's the story alright. Nerdy historian doesn't think that fits in with the evidence. He's building a strong case.

Nodin

BTW, it's available on 4OD, with decent reception.

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/islam-the-untold-story/4od#3401340

human 19

It was on in the background but I didnt take much in.
I would be more interested in a programme which explained why, considering the extremists of all the religions, their lot continue to be the most fury-inducing

Nodin

human 19 wrote: »

It was on in the background but I didnt take much in.
I would be more interested in a programme which explained why, considering the extremists of all the religions, their lot continue to be the most fury-inducing

...because they're the bogeyman of the moment, and they're geographically widespread. You'll note the following contains similar elements, yet none of the attention

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-14058814
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-15997648
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10334529
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/31/india.religion
http://www.smh.com.au/world/hindus-in-valentines-day-attack-on-lovers-20090215-884e.html

TwoShedsJackson

Bannasidhe wrote: »

That's the story alright. Nerdy historian doesn't think that fits in with the evidence. He's building a strong case.

For all the good that will do. It will inevitably be 'trumped' by the 'but it says so in our Holy Book!!' argument.

Nodin

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

For all the good that will do. It will inevitably be 'trumped' by the 'but it says so in our Holy Book!!' argument.

Its the auld dog for the hard road.

MagicMarker

I was gonna watch it, but then I saw that Southpark was on.

Wibbs

Sorry I missed it now. It's an area of history that piques my interest. It first started to really get me wondering when I read some historian in a sunday supplement about how the evidence for Jesus actually existing was very slight, but evidence for Muhammed was unassailable. A view I would have held at the time.

The more I read though, the more it turned out how Muhammed was significantly more nebulous a figure than claimed. Outside of two(IIRC) very brief references in Greek texts and one of them is decidedly vague, there's no mention of Muhammed outside Muslim texts and they only start to mention him long after he's dead and any on the ground witnesses are dead. The various biographies of his are centuries after he's dead. The first definite muslim texts don't mention him at all. Nor do they mention the Koran. Both of which are supposed to be the most central tenets of the faith today.

To compare it for an audience brought up in a christian background it would be like having christian texts of the first century written by contemporaries never mentioning Jesus or the crucifixion and a biography of Jesus only showing up in the 2nd/3rd century AD. Very odd.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

They're currently discussing why Islam couldn't have started in Mecca.

Well for good reason. Mecca is mentioned nowhere in any non Muslim sources and it's claimed to be a major centre of trade. Add in that it's way off the beaten track so would be useless as a trading hub anyway. It looks very strongly like a later invention/accommodation to build the messiah myth. Again compared to the christian story it would be like finding out that Nazareth or Jerusalem were unknown before the stories were written down a century or more later.

It seems to many in the field more likely that early islam was one of the many judeaochristian movements that sprang up mid first millennium. It has a lot of similarities with a couple. Then it became successful on the back of a collection of Arab groups fighting and winning local wars under a local charismatic leader until they consolidated enough to take on what was left of the Persian/GrecoRoman world. Then it started to be codified around the late 8th century into what became Islam as it came to be known.

Of course suggesting such things can be dangerous as various researchers have found out. The history of critical analysis of the christian(and jewish) texts is a long one. They're not nearly as protected a body of texts in the christian mind since the reformation. Islam and the koran are. One religious college lecturer in Egypt who made some passing observation about the evolution of the koran was thrown out of his 2nd floor class window for his trouble and other researchers operate under pseudonyms.

Nodin wrote: »

...because they're the bogeyman of the moment, and they're geographically widespread. You'll note the following contains similar elements, yet none of the attention

True dat. On top of the political stuff going on I reckon Islam makes for a better bogeyman, because much of it's theology is familiar to western "christian" world. The feeling that "sure isn't it the same god boss, only more exotic". With other totally unconnected faiths doing equally batshít stuff I reckon an element of "sure what would you expect from heathens" is going on. I'll say this though, the anti Islam thang in the west is recent enough to be within my lifetime. I'd trace it's origins back to the late 70's with Shah of Iran being deposed and the "Mad Mullahs" taking over. That pissed the yanks off no end at the time. Then it eased off for a bit when the Russian invaded Afghanistan and reports by Sandy Gall were showing us brave Mujahadeen freedom fighters knocking the shíte out of them. The same freedom fighters the west came back to bomb themselves... I'd say in the common mind it really took off with again Iran and the fatwa against Salman Rushdie's book. That brought discussion of the wider diffs between some western and some muslim mindsets.

Skrynesaver

Just finished "in the shadow of the Sword" and it's a fascinating look at the development of Mono-Theism and the history of the time. In it Holland presents the evidence that Mecca and Medina were not the original founding places of Islam, how the council of Nicea stitched together the Christian bible and the development of the rabbinical tradition in Judaism. Would heartily recommend.

Bannasidhe

Skrynesaver wrote: »

Just finished "in the shadow of the Sword" and it's a fascinating look at the development of Mono-Theism and the history of the time. In it Holland presents the evidence that Mecca and Medina were not the original founding places of Islam, how the council of Nicea stitched together the Christian bible and the development of the rabbinical tradition in Judaism. Would heartily recommend.

I have that on my 'must read' list.

Wibbs

I'd suggest reading a few different books on the time B, just to get a general feel for the subject(if it interests you of course:)). Especially in potentially "controversial" subjects like this it's best not to just take one viewpoint. Viewpoints tend to be quite polarised with both sides often ignoring wider discourse on the matter. EG in the islam forum a poster posted a link rebutting the main points of the programme. I'd happily dissect each of the rebuttals and throw in some rebuttals of my own. EG one non Muslim source given only part quotes the source. If you read the rest of it, it shows a prophet alright, but says said prophet was awaiting the coming of an anointed one/second coming/messiah and he's described as a false prophet coming on the back of the sword and bloodshed(one other source says the same of the bloodshed). Not such good PR if it is Muhammed. That said I made it rule that I don't post in there. Both for my sanity and the sanity of the regulars.:)

Further to my comparison and example of relying on one source and not others, Nazareth isn't mentioned in any Jewish or other sources until the 2nd century(IIRC). So my comparison wsn't quite accurate. That said it never laid claim to be a large town with major importance for the area and excavations there have found evidence of organised settlement there for a very long time, unlike the case with Mecca.

Bannasidhe

Wibbs wrote: »

I'd suggest reading a few different books on the time B, just to get a general feel for the subject(if it interests you of course:)). Especially in potentially "controversial" subjects like this it's best not to just take one viewpoint. Viewpoints tend to be quite polarised with both sides often ignoring wider discourse on the matter. EG in the islam forum a poster posted a link rebutting the main points of the programme. I'd happily dissect each of the rebuttals and throw in some rebuttals of my own. EG one non Muslim source given only part quotes the source. If you read the rest of it, it shows a prophet alright, but says said prophet was awaiting the coming of an anointed one/second coming/messiah and he's described as a false prophet coming on the back of the sword and bloodshed(one other source says the same of the bloodshed). Not such good PR if it is Muhammed. That said I made it rule that I don't post in there. Both for my sanity and the sanity of the regulars.:)

Further to my comparison and example of relying on one source and not others, Nazareth isn't mentioned in any Jewish or other sources until the 2nd century(IIRC). So my comparison wsn't quite accurate. That said it never laid claim to be a large town with major importance for the area and excavations there have found evidence of organised settlement there for a very long time, unlike the case with Mecca.

Thanks for that Wibbs.

I haven't really look at the origins of Islam since I was a lowly fresher 100 years ago, but recently I got drafted in to give a few tutorials on the expansion of Islam and although the origins were not part of our focus, I came across 'In the Shadow' as part of my research but had to set it aside to read later or I would have gone off on a glorious tangent leaving my students addled.

It is on my to-do list - maybe a kindle version to read on my holidays net week.

mathepac

Wibbs wrote: »

... Nazareth isn't mentioned in any Jewish or other sources until the 2nd century(IIRC). ...

That may be because Jesus is acknowledged by some historians as being a Nazerene, not an inhabitant of Nazereth, which as you say only appears as a town/village much later that the generally agreed death of Jesus.

The Nazerene's, not wishing to bore anyone, were a Jewish sect, some say terrorists or fanatical freedom fighters and Jesus and his followers were supposedly members.

My brother-in-law (an extremely knowledgeable man) and I were discussing the programme last night and strangely we both a reached similar preliminary conclusions having watched the programme. The common thread in Middle-eastern monotheism seems to be the Zoroastrians (or more correctly perhaps the Parsis / Parsees) the ancient Persian / Indian monotheist religion that has a recognisable theology / doctrine passed down to Judaism, Christianity and Islam, with the latter seeming to owie more to its direct Judaic and Christian antecedents.

mathepac

Skrynesaver wrote: »

Just finished "in the shadow of the Sword" and it's a fascinating look at the development of Mono-Theism and the history of the time. In it Holland presents the evidence that Mecca and Medina were not the original founding places of Islam, how the council of Nicea stitched together the Christian bible and the development of the rabbinical tradition in Judaism. Would heartily recommend.

Glen Bowerstock writing in The Guardian in May this year seemed a trifle less than impressed with Holland's boo -

"He has written his book in a swashbuckling style that aims more to unsettle his readers than to instruct them. I have not seen a book about Arabia that is so irresponsible and unreliable since Kamal Salibi's The Bible Came from Arabia (1985). Although that work was depressingly misguided in replacing biblical places with their homonyms in the Arabian peninsula, it at least revealed an accomplished scholar who had gone badly astray. Holland has read widely, but carelessly. He starts out with an irrelevant, though arresting, account of a defeated Jewish king in Arabian Himyar (Yemen) killing himself by riding his horse into the Red Sea. It is typical of Holland's style to lead off with this fanciful story when an inscription from the time of the king's death records that the Ethiopians killed him."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/may/04/in-shadow-of-sword-tom-holland

Not having read the book and not being a historian I am not in a position to comment either way but might it just be a New World scholar of the ancients having a pop at an Old World one?

endacl

Sulla Felix wrote: »

I only ever heard that it started when muhammed had some dreams off in the desert?

Do the middle eastern deserts have a local version of peyote?

Bannasidhe

mathepac wrote: »

That may be because Jesus is acknowledged by some historians as being a Nazerene, not an inhabitant of Nazereth, which as you say only appears as a town/village much later that the generally agreed death of Jesus.

The Nazerene's, not wishing to bore anyone, were a Jewish sect, some say terrorists or fanatical freedom fighters and Jesus and his followers were supposedly members.

My brother-in-law (an extremely knowledgeable man) and I were discussing the programme last night and strangely we both a reached similar preliminary conclusions having watched the programme. The common thread in Middle-eastern monotheism seems to be the Zoroastrians (or more correctly perhaps the Parsis / Parsees) the ancient Persian / Indian monotheist religion that has a recognisable theology / doctrine passed down to Judaism, Christianity and Islam, with the latter seeming to owie more to its direct Judaic and Christian antecedents.

I remember reading about the Nazerenes many years ago but can't remember where. You wouldn't have a recommended reading on that would you?

I really much watch that programme again as the signal kept dropping in an out so it was very disjointed.

SeanW

Nodin wrote: »

...because they're the bogeyman of the moment, and they're geographically widespread. You'll note the following contains similar elements, yet none of the attention

Wow, poor country has problems. I never could have foreseen it.

Meanwhile, I'm sure you'll be very happy to explain why, for example, the Amish DON'T have a reputation for any of this stuff ...

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

Wow, poor country has problems. I never could have foreseen it....

You might rephrase all that into a coherent comment, question or something. As it stands, I've no idea what you're getting at.

SeanW wrote: »

Meanwhile, I'm sure you'll be very happy to explain why, for example, the Amish DON'T have a reputation for any of this stuff ...

...because they're a pacifistic sect with numbers under 250,000. And even within that, extremism is not unknown.

Hotblack Desiato

Wibbs wrote: »

On top of the political stuff going on I reckon Islam makes for a better bogeyman, because much of it's theology is familiar to western "christian" world. The feeling that "sure isn't it the same god boss, only more exotic". With other totally unconnected faiths doing equally batshít stuff

I must have missed the news reports of pagans killing 3000 people in New York in the name of Odin? Buddhists massacreing 200 in Madrid?

I'll say this though, the anti Islam thang in the west is recent enough to be within my lifetime.

Within my lifetime, Afghanistan was a relatively peaceful relative democracy... it was on the hippy trail FFS. Its descent into the batshît insane rule of religious nutcases is a tremendous tragedy for its people. All in the name of Allah (pbuh)

Nodin

ninja900 wrote: »

I must have missed the news reports of pagans killing 3000 people in New York in the name of Odin? Buddhists massacreing 200 in Madrid?
.......

....just because it doesn't happen to Westerners doesn't mean it doesn't happen. A perusal of the history of Sri Lanka and India would show you that.

Sindri

Wibbs, you knowledgeable b*stard, what say you to the misinterpretation of Arabic, and (thus) the Qur'an?

Sindri

Also thanks for the link Bannasidhe.:)

Wibbs

Sindri wrote: »

Wibbs, you knowledgeable b*stard, what say you to the misinterpretation of Arabic, and (thus) the Qur'an?

There seems to be all sorts of views on that, including some non Muslim scholars who claim that a lot of it translates as nonsense(personally I don't buy that, not ranged agin 1200 years of theological study by some very clever people). It certainly has some odd parts. Historical inaccuracies, ditto for scientific. It's vague enough to be defendable or attackable so not close to the clear text it claims for itself.

goose2005

ninja900 wrote: »

I must have missed the news reports of pagans killing 3000 people in New York in the name of Odin? Buddhists massacreing 200 in Madrid?

*insert comment about atheist Soviet Union / Cambodia / China / North Korea*

mathepac

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I remember reading about the Nazerenes many years ago but can't remember where. You wouldn't have a recommended reading on that would you? ...

I had a quick look in my own books and I've come up with three or four that have varying degrees of information on Nazerenes / Nazarites / Nazoreans, etc. and versions with an "s" substituted for "z".

The books I have are "The Hiram Key" by Christopher Knight & Robert Lomas, "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" and "The Messianic Legacy" by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh & Henry Lincoln and "The Head of God" by Keith Laidler.

None of the books concern themselves primarily or exclusively with this sect, but in another book I have "The New Testament Code" by Robert Eisenman he makes a case for St. John the Baptist as a member and states that the term Nazirite is interchangeable with Rechabite and argues elsewhere that the the Rechabites were prototypical Nazoreans (Nasoreans) and states that Jerome made reference to a "Gospel of the Nazoraeans". [no longer in existence]

Most of what I have is populist in nature and might not stand the glare of professional historical verification but it explains a few things - the non-existence (lack of evidence for) of Nazerath at the time of Jesus, the fact that in Roman-occupied "Palastine", despite (because of?) having a military governer, the Apostles appeared able to produce weapons at the drop of a hat, etc

That's me and that's them, I'm tapped out on the topic, sorry. Your local library or d'interweb might be useful if you want more info, or, if you have a Rabbi or synagogue nearby they might have more sources.

HTH

bnt

goose2005 wrote: »

*insert comment about atheist Soviet Union / Cambodia / China / North Korea*

*ignore comment because none of that was done in the name of atheism*

SeanW

Nodin wrote: »

You might rephrase all that into a coherent comment, question or something. As it stands, I've no idea what you're getting at.

Poor, backward parts of the world have these kinds of problems and that the Hindu caste system should be implicated in some, comes as no surprise to me.

For clarity, I think Roman Catholicism, Scientology, the Hindu Caste System (Hindu might be alright without it), and Islamic sects like Wahhabism and Salafism, are as close to pure evil as it is possible for any human ideology to be.

But India is a genuine democracy (where the vote of an untouchable is the same as the vote of a Brahman) that's in transition from 3rd world poverty stricken country to modern 1st world county. Hence there's every reason to believe that some of that nonsense will be consigned to history.

...because they're a pacifistic sect with numbers under 250,000.

Rather because Islam has a well earned reputation for violence, hatred and insanity, while the Amish, justifiably don't. Like most other religions do not have these issues or at least not on the same scale.

Facts:

1. Islamic history is like that of Christianity in South America - a story of conquest, domination, steeped in blood. Including one spectacular incident where they tried to convert India to Islam, thankfully failed, but killed 90 million Hindus in the attempt.
2. Islam calls for the death penalty for homosexuals, apostates and blasphemers.
3. Islamic extremism has a real and present foothold in the United Kingdom. Primarily Wahabbism, funded and directed by Saudi Arabia and promoted via the Green Lane Mosque, King Fahad Academy etc.
4. When someone exposes these people for what they are, as Channel 4 did with it's "Undercover Mosque" series, our useless governments are more likely to accuse the programme maker of racism than deal with the violence, treason and outright sedition they revealed.
5. Non Muslims are second class citizens at best in many Islamic countries, one example being Egypt where, for some reason, the 'Arab Spring' resulted in large scale violence against Coptic Christians.

Going back to the Amish, for example, to take a photograph of them of is extremely offensive, because they consider it the sin of 'making an image.' It is of roughly equal gravity as, oh, I don't know, drawing the Prophet Mohammed, or suggesting that someone holding a sign saying "BEHEAD THOSE WHO SAY ISLAM IS VIOLENT" might be an extremist.

Yet the Amish instructions to their people are not to cooperate with the errant photographer, but if you insult Islam or even question it, like Theo Van Gogh or the Danish cartoonist, or that clown pastor in Florida, you're likely to murdered or held responsible for yet another worldwide orgy of violence, murder and destruction.

I am not aware of these kinds of issues being so widespread in other faiths and if they do not concern you, I'd be curious why.

gothictwilight

goose2005 wrote: »

*insert comment about atheist Soviet Union / Cambodia / China / North Korea*

**don't ignore comment as make valid point*

robindch

goose2005 wrote: »

*insert comment about atheist Soviet Union / Cambodia / China / North Korea*

That nonsense has been debunked so many times in this forum that it'll end up as the number two question on the forum FAQ.(*)

(*) for whenever anybody gets around to writing it.

recedite

ninja900 wrote: »

Within my lifetime, Afghanistan was a relatively peaceful relative democracy... it was on the hippy trail FFS. Its descent into the batshît insane rule of religious nutcases is a tremendous tragedy for its people. All in the name of Allah (pbuh)

To be fair, it was never a democracy, although the west might pretend the brief and unstable western style governments installed in Kabul after the ousting of the Russians and then the Taliban were "democracies".
Its a tribal society where people always carried guns or weapons. A Pashtun tribesman living in the area where the US drone attacks are occurring is only vaguely aware of what "country" he is in, or whether he is a Pakistani or an Afghan. "Nationality" in a western sense has no meaning to them. Loyalty is only to the tribe or local clan.
IMO the Taliban fanatics (themselves an import) are a temporary phenomenon resulting from, and thriving on, the horrors of war. If all the foreign troops left the area, the tribal elders would reassert control, and the Taliban fanatics would eventually be rejected by the people.

gothictwilight

goose2005 wrote: »

*insert comment about atheist Soviet Union / Cambodia / China / North Korea*

I'd say a valid argument.
You could stick revolutionary france there as well.

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

Poor, (.........)be consigned to history..

Well done. Thats possibly the most classic example of blinkered Islamophobia I've come across. I highlighted a number of issues to do with fundamentalist style hinduism - far more than the caste system - and you brush it off. Even more telling, you point out the lack of development as a factor, but fail to use those criteria in speaking of Islamic countries. A wonderful piece of double think.

SeanW wrote: »

Rather because Islam has a well ........curious why.

The usual out-of-context "waaah, teh muslims" nonsense which ignores the kind of incidents highlighted earlier.

SeanW wrote: »

I am not aware of these kinds of issues being so widespread in other faiths .

I've presented incidents of couples being attacked for celebrating valentines day, people being killed for taking the 'wrong name', persecution and killing of religous minorities and violence against women, all in India, all by hindus.

Its clear you not being aware is therefore a result of willful ignorance, rather than those things not occurring - "The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract."

mathepac

mathepac wrote: »

... That's me and that's them, I'm tapped out on the topic, sorry. ...

I forgot the most obvious place to look - the Bible itself.

Here's what I found:

Matthew 2:23 "... that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled: He shall be called a Nazarene." [ESV]

Mark 14:67 "... and seeing Peter warming himself she looked at him and said, You were also with the Nazerene, Jesus." [ESV]

SeanW

Nodin wrote: »

Even more telling, you point out the lack of development as a factor, but fail to use those criteria in speaking of Islamic countries. A wonderful piece of double think.

I did not realise the Saudi Arabia was an impoverished 3rd world country. I also didn't know that the Netherlands (where the Theo Van Gogh was murdered for criticising Islam) or the U.K. (where Wahabbism is on the rise) were poor countries either.

You learn something new every day :rolleyes:

The usual out-of-context "waaah, teh muslims" nonsense which ignores the kind of incidents highlighted earlier.

I didn't ignore the incidents you highlighted, I dealt with them and made my view of the Hindu caste system very clear.

I also stated why I didn't feel threated by the Hindu caste system, and my optimism that may be consigned to history.

Its clear you not being aware is therefore a result of willful ignorance, rather than those things not occurring - "The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract."

So instead of defending Wahabbism and other violent extremist Islamic ideologies - or at least giving good reasons why we need not fear them, you decide to call me a "bigot."

Lovely.

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

I did not realise the Saudi Arabia was an impoverished 3rd world country. I also didn't know that the Netherlands (where the Theo Van Gogh was murdered for criticising Islam) or the U.K. (where Wahabbism is on the rise) were poor countries either.

You learn something new every day .

Ahh yes, more nonsense. You like to hop from whole societies to individual acts as suits you. Classic bigotry.

SeanW wrote: »

I didn't ignore the incidents you highlighted, I dealt with them and made my view of the Hindu caste system very clear.

I also stated why I didn't feel threated by the Hindu caste system, and my optimism that may be consigned to history.

So instead of defending Wahabbism and other violent extremist Islamic ideologies - or at least giving good reasons why we need not fear them, you decide to call me a "bigot."

Lovely.

"caste system"...dear o dear. You don't feel threatened by Hindu nationalism/fundamentalism because you don't live in India. If you feel threatened by muslims, I suggest contacting a medical proffessional.

By the way -

Is persecuting christians and muslims a result of the "caste system"?

Is attacking couples celebrating valentines day a result of the "caste system"?

Is burning effigys of a man who publicly kissed a woman a result of the "caste system"?

Is the treatment of Widows a result of the "caste system"?

Are tamil suicide bombers a result of the "caste system"?

SeanW

Nodin wrote: »

Ahh yes, more nonsense. You like to hop from whole societies to individual acts as suits you. Classic bigotry.

Only they're not just individuals. Even those who act alone, like the murderer of Theo Van Gogh, come from "whole societies" which is why he was murdered for criticising Islam and someone who takes a photograph of the Amish (equally offensive) is not.

Everything happens in context.

You didn't say anything about Wahabbism and Saudi Arabia ...

So again, rather than deal with the issue, you call me a bigot again :rolleyes:

"caste system"?

I only a read a few of your links and the caste system featured heavily in them.

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

..............

I only a read a few of your links and the caste system featured heavily in them.

Selective reading. Dear me.

SeanW

not selective, I just didn't bother reading them all in full.

goose2005

robindch wrote: »

That nonsense has been debunked so many times in this forum that it'll end up as the number two question on the forum FAQ.(*)

(*) for whenever anybody gets around to writing it.

I wasn't being serious. Just that there were other motives for 9/11 beyond Islam being intrinsically evil.

Dark_ness

Practically everyone is biased in some way.

Dark_ness

Wibbs wrote: »

It seems to many in the field more likely that early islam was one of the many judeaochristian movements that sprang up mid first millennium. It has a lot of similarities with a couple. Then it became successful on the back of a collection of Arab groups fighting and winning local wars under a local charismatic leader until they consolidated enough to take on what was left of the Persian/GrecoRoman world. Then it started to be codified around the late 8th century into what became Islam as it came to be known.

Dear Wibbs, Islamic tradition holds that God sent messengers to every nation and each messenger preached Islam to his followers.

Wibbs

Dark_ness wrote: »

Dear Wibbs, Islamic tradition holds that God sent messengers to every nation and each messenger preached Islam to his followers.

Of course it does. It retroactively appropriated the traditions of previous religions as a handy way of legitimising the new religion at the time(and today). Christianity did something similar but on a much reduced scale by comparison(indeed made a few efforts to distance themselves from Jewish tradition). Even the early Christian church at it's most oddball wouldn't have claimed Moses was a Christian, but Islam does just that. For quite a while in Islamic history scholars even associated one figure in the Quran as http://Alexander the Great and called him a muslim. Oh yes folks. Crrrrazy stuff.

Then again as usual the Quran isn't too clear/contradicts itself. Various passages claim Muhammed to be the first Muslim and other passages then claim eh no, Jesus Moses and others were muslims before him. Oh and while it's at it claims all babies born are Muslims too. Hence when people convert to Islam from other religions Muslims call them "reverts" returning to the "original faith".

And if Allah sent messengers to every nation, how come the traditions of monotheism vary so much and that polytheism was more the order of the day outside the middle east?

Dades

Dark_ness wrote: »

Practically everyone is biased in some way.

And I know who you are.

mathepac

Wibbs wrote: »

... Christianity did something similar but on a much reduced scale by comparison(indeed made a few efforts to distance themselves from Jewish tradition). ...

I think these days even the most right-wing of Christians would acknowledge that until about 150/200CE, groups like the Essenes etc while still avowedly Jewish in nature were the closest to a set of Christian beliefs in the Middle East at the time, a kind of transitional doctrine between Judaism and Christianity

recedite

Darkness-one is that you, returned from the dead?

Jellicoe

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ijj85BFtIVA