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*