New Book: The Hidden Origins of Islam
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
Firstly, the authors do not claim that Mohammad IS Jesus only that the word Mohammad is first used as a Title for Jesus. Like it or leave it, the coins do exist and the word Mohammad IS being used as a Title on them.
Secondly, there's nothing wrong with the hypothesis that Lincoln is a picture of God on the penny. If a person from 1500 years in the future found a penny, and knew nothing at all about the USA (didn't know what a President was for example) and only saw the coin, they may hypothesize that the picture of Lincoln is a picture of God. What's so unreasonable with that?
Thirdly, we have Islam today. We know it's based on Christianity and that Christianity was the dominant religion in the area. We also know there were all sorts of Christian sects. Some Christians didn't believe in a real Jesus, some thought he was a vessel for Sophia and the Christ, others thought he was the Messiah and still others thought he was Satan. It's very reasonable to hypothesize that Islam evolved from this mix-up of Christian sects.
Fourth, I checked out the links. The picture of the gold coins are nice. Please include with the picture some description of the coins outside of WIKI commons. Which archeological team found them, when, who dated them, were this information has been published in a reputable academic archeological journal, etc....
The next links, following the gold coin pics, took me: here which has a nice list of coins. So, I clicked on the first link and was taken here. So I chose the first coin from your link and found a nice article detailing when it was purchased, where it was purchased as well as what was on the coin and some history of the coin itself. All published in a peer reviewed reputably science journal JSTOR.
The article is old and published in 1982, so, it lacks modern scholarship (as in the latest theories of Islamic History). However, it is interesting for a number of reasons:
(1) no one knows who minted the coin.
(2) The portrait is of the Sassanid King of Persia Khostau II.
(3) Now this is interesting: it carries on it the traditional Zoroastrian marking such as a fire alter and the star and crescent (I hadn't know the star and crescent predated Islam as a Zoroastrian symbol. I assume this was later co-opted into Islam in later centuries).
(4) According to analysis there is no indication of any "Islamic" Character.
So, your link was a pretty good one, sadly the only analysis I could find is nearly 3 decades old. It seems that the first coin on the list was a coin minted in Persia just prior to the Islamic Crusades against that Empire (if they actually occurred).
The "Muslim" conquests may have occurred as legend suggest - or not - or something in between. Archeological evidence suggests that many of the battles were actually between the Persians and the Byzantine Empires and later ruling Arabs had the Persian names rewritten as if they were actually Arabs. The research is still very new. Given there were Arabs living all over the Mediterranean as well as in Europe and in England and an Arab was even the Emperor of Rome - it's likely that they settled and expanded (perhaps with some fighting but perhaps less than is assumed). What I am thinking about is that whomever invented Islam (this is assuming there are no Gods) probably wished to make everyone "think" they were Arab (even if they were not) and this was probably because they needed to justify their right to rule as well as to solidify their territories.
That aside, I'd like a link to the information on the gold coins (outside of wiki pictures).
One thing that I find odd, is why the hesitation to conciser that perhaps the Islamic Crusades didn't occur? :shrug: Wouldn't it be nice if history was actually a little more peaceful than we once thought?
Last edited:
I will respond to your post more properly once you have provided what I have asked for.
Number one, I would like you to cite your sources and explain your reasoning.
I'm sure it's not unreasonable, if you don't really think about it.
Again, wrong. In Islam, the time before Muhammad (saw) and Islam is known as jahiliyyah ("the time of ignorance"). Pre-Islamic Arabia was predominately Pagan. Christians and Jews did exist within the area however again it was predominately Pagan.
Not really, if you understood the origins of Islam you would have realized that the place in which the Prophet (saw) and the early ummah lived was predominately Pagan and worshiped idols. Infact the Ka'aba originally stored idols to Pagan gods before the emergence of Islam. It was this reason why the early Muslims were peresecuted and which lead to certain events. Sure, certain Christians may have been in the area and it could be argued that the Prophet (saw) had contact with such people however to argue that Islam is nothing more than a weird sect of Christianity seems like a gross oversimplification and generalization not to mention the fact that it has been said the Prophet (saw) couldn't read or write. There is also no inidication that he had extended contact with Christians or studied from them which means that the influence of Christianity would have been at best minimal. While Islam does share somethings in common with Christianity it is distinct within it's own right.
Cite sources and reasoning.
Again cite sources and reasoning.
Number one, I would like you to cite your sources and explain your reasoning.
I'm sure it's not unreasonable, if you don't really think about it.
Again, wrong. In Islam, the time before Muhammad (saw) and Islam is known as jahiliyyah ("the time of ignorance"). Pre-Islamic Arabia was predominately Pagan. Christians and Jews did exist within the area however again it was predominately Pagan.
Not really, if you understood the origins of Islam you would have realized that the place in which the Prophet (saw) and the early ummah lived was predominately Pagan and worshiped idols. Infact the Ka'aba originally stored idols to Pagan gods before the emergence of Islam. It was this reason why the early Muslims were peresecuted and which lead to certain events. Sure, certain Christians may have been in the area and it could be argued that the Prophet (saw) had contact with such people however to argue that Islam is nothing more than a weird sect of Christianity seems like a gross oversimplification and generalization not to mention the fact that it has been said the Prophet (saw) couldn't read or write. There is also no inidication that he had extended contact with Christians or studied from them which means that the influence of Christianity would have been at best minimal. While Islam does share somethings in common with Christianity it is distinct within it's own right.
Cite sources and reasoning.
Again cite sources and reasoning.
argumentum ad hominem is a last ditch logical fallacy employed in an effort to attain another logical fallacy: argumentum ad populum (itself a fallacious argument).
I'm sure if we were discussing The Intergalactic Warlord Xenu and the Religion Scientology you'd be able to easily grasp both the context as well as follow the logic in the argument. As we're discussing your belief system (for which there is an equal amount of good evidence with Scientology it is valid - that is none) suddenly you are no longer able to follow the context nor the argument. In short, I could make the same arguments about Xenu or Thor or Athena and you'd see the logic. As soon as these same arguments made with Allah as the frame of reference you are not longer able to think logically. I find this phenomena very very interesting. I'm leaning it has a strong genetic component which I am sure we'll understand better during this decade.
Can an All Powerful and All Knowing God learn ? Can you?
Its not a fallacy when its true regardless of how much latin you can quote
Peace be unto you
.
hahaha, you love non sense don't you?
also, why do you care for what i beleive?
hmm,also it's a very very interresting phenomena, how athesits try to force their ideas and their thinking to all other people, even if it reached violence. I see a person who have a blocked anger, and a self insecurity, trying to proove to everyone else that they are wrong and you're right, you can't accept any one who's right, also you can't accept that you're wrong. Now this is a very very interresting phenomena.
hahaha, you love non sense don't you?
also, why do you care for what i beleive?
hmm,also it's a very very interresting phenomena, how athesits try to force their ideas and their thinking to all other people, even if it reached violence. I see a person who have a blocked anger, and a self insecurity, trying to proove to everyone else that they are wrong and you're right, you can't accept any one who's right, also you can't accept that you're wrong. Now this is a very very interresting phenomena.
At the end of day, coins from the period exist while a Qur'an doesn't. No amount of whining on a Science forum is going to change those two FACTS. The only way that is going to change is if someone were to make a new discovery. Which actually is happening every day. And perhaps unsurprisingly, each year, more evidence builds up that suggests ....(Oh My, Oh My).... much like Hercules, Moses, Zeus, and Jesus... Mohammad didn't actually exist. Which actually makes logical sense. Really, are these finding all THAT shocking. Regardless as to which myth you analyze, it's always the same, a myth.
Can an All Powerful and All Knowing God learn ? Can you?
:roflmao:
Can an All Powerful and All Knowing God learn ? Can you?
:roflmao:
You can sit here and pontificate endlessly with your jabber but, at the end of the day it doesn't mean jack shit unless you can prove it, so, answer my post.
That may be but I'm curious.
Ja'far,
The initial page on the thread lists the Title of the Book. Did you miss something? :bugeye: Not only that I have cited the authors as is clearly indicated. I have given you the reference - it is now up to you to look it up, read it, -- you can (after having read the cited reference) accept the authors conclusions or write a rebuttal for the points you think they are wrong on.
It's as if you missed the entire first page. Each point is referenced and cited. The points regarding the Muslims-Spanish Conquest, Muslim-Byzantine conquest as well as the expansion of Arabs into the receding Byzantine empire is cited on the pages with the name of the Abstract Proceedings as per the link that have been published.
I can't READ it for you.
Did you miss the fact an Arab was the Roman Emperor? Arabs lived all over the Mediterranean. Many were Christian.
There is ZERO contemporary evidence Mohammad existed and you're talking about if he could read or write :bugeye: You're basing your so-called evidence on a History written post-hoc in the 9th century by people with a political agenda.
Which is the whole point of the thread. REAL Archeologists are going back to the primary sources and rediscovering what we actually know so as to discern your myth from the actual Historical evidence.
Buy the book, Open it, Read.
:bugeye:
You've read the Qur'an? No?
If you open the Qur'an you'll find that approximately 80% of the stories found therein are based on Jewish and Christian myth. Let me repeat that: 80% of the STORIES in the QUR'AN are based on Jewish and Christian MYTHS. OK, one more time. Eighty Percent of the Koran is based on Jewish and Christian myths.
Now Ja'far, how do you suppose CHRISTIAN Myths ended up in the Qur'an? Well? Tell us a logical and rational explanation for how CHRISTIAN stories came to be 80% of the QUR'AN.
Last edited:
Wait... and this is proof for what?
Secondly if one can use logic... Coins are made of? Quran was written on? Which of material would survive better? What is the frequency of the minting of coins? How is that frequency comparable to the writing of the Quran?
Which does one expect to find easily? Which one would be harder to find?
So is lack of excavation a proof for the Quran not existing...
I don't know but I think, this 'fact' is quite pointless. As the argument 'there are coins but no Quran' is actually comparing apples and oranges.
Peace be unto you
Big Chiller
Registered Senior Member
What do you expect Michael the same one God has told about all the events of the past including what's in Christian and Jewish scriptures in the al-Quran.
I did not say that lack of evidence is proof of absence. Sure maybe Hercules existed. And Zeus. Ooouu and maybe Mohammad did as well. Maybe the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. Seeing as we have EQUAL good evidence for them all. AND, as I noted earlier in the thread, perhaps there may have been a person (or few people), most-likely a Christian Patriarch, whom the Mohammad protagonist in the few Qur'an stories he therein appears that did exist?Wait... and this is proof for what?
Secondly if one can use logic... Coins are made of? Quran was written on? Which of material would survive better? What is the frequency of the minting of coins? How is that frequency comparable to the writing of the Quran?
Which does one expect to find easily? Which one would be harder to find?
So is lack of excavation a proof for the Quran not existing...
I don't know but I think, this 'fact' is quite pointless. As the argument 'there are coins but no Quran' is actually comparing apples and oranges.
Peace be unto you
Maybe Xenu exists too? :shrug:
There's no contemporary evidence of Mohammad's existence AND as a matter of fact, it looks as if Mohammad was actually just a word commonly used as a Title Jesus. So common in fact, it made it's way onto minted coins of the period. Which seems more likely to be honest.
Sure, it would seem that someone would have made a note of the Qur'ans creation or it's competition, it being the words of the Creator of Reality and everything, but, sure, maybe the World's Only Perfect Book just wasn't Perfect enough to have survived? I mean, unlike the 5000 year Egyptian Book of the Dead, which was merely made by us mortals (but we still have it word word), God simply didn't give two farts it humans kept an original copy of the magical Qur'an.... too funny
At the end of day, coins from the period exist while a Qur'an doesn't. This is PROOF that as of today's end, we have the coins and still have no Qur'an.
Honestly?
-- We now know the Christian and Jewish scriptures were based on earlier stores and other Gods and Goddesses and myths (see Epic of Gilgamesh)
-- If we did suppose there is a God and we believed it had sent Prophets to people all around the world, then I'd expect to see more than just a rewrite of the Bible. That is, at the very least, I'd expect to see the names of the Aztec Prophets in the Qur'an and how they were given such and such Prophesies. I'd expect to see the names of Aboriginal Prophets and how they were given such and such Prophesies. I'd expect to see the names of Japanese Prophets and how they were given such and such Prophesies.
As it stands, the Qur'an is simply a Bible with a couple of more myths added in. Which makes sense, if the people who wrote it were originally a sect of Christianity.
-- Islam is actually closer to contemporary Christianity then some earlier forms of Christianity. THAT'S how similar the two belief systems are.