New Book: The Hidden Origins of Islam

[Michael]

Now what's this about why is most of the Quran from Abraham (pbuh) now and all of it not from God?

And how exactly is Muhammad (pbuh) seccond fiddle to Abraham (pbuh) the Quran was bestowed upon him wasn't it?

Well, now, this is interesting. If we were to take the story as literal then Mohammad didn't matter at all. The Qur'an mattered yes, but that had nothing to do with Mohammad himself. He could have been a talking banana for all he mattered. Or a Skype headset. He's just a conduit for God to talk. Apparently Abrahamic Gods can't appear as people and do their own talking - that's just too much.... clarity? For the Philosophy in the Qur'an, the only person that matters here is God.

Think of it like this: You meet the author of Harry Potter (by phone). She says, look, I noticed you guys over there have a bad copy. I'm going to tell you which parts to correct now. Thanks.
-- who do you credit with the Book and the Philosophy of Harry Potter? The genuine Author of the Book or the secretary on the phone with the Author who is taking down the notes? Obviously the Author. In the case of the Qur'an as you know, God would be the Author, Mohammad would be the secretary.

If we were to compare the entire paradigm with, say, someone like Buddha; well now, Buddha actually sat down and thought up His own ideas all by himself (under a tree according to his myth). The thing that's interesting is comparably with Islam, Allah didn't come up with anything anymore enlightening with his Omniscience than Buddha did just thinking by himself. As God knows all, how do we know he didn't just copy Buddha??? I mean, please, even modern philosophers come up with new ways of thinking about things. Regardless of what you may think in this regards, just notice that we're comparing Buddha with Allah, not Buddha with Mohammad. So, again, if one were to take the story as fact, then Mohammad could have been a talking banana, a secretary or skype head set. He isn't of any concern at all and simply doesn't matter at all.

Now, if there are no Gods, this is something else to think about. Think of something YOURSELF (like Buddha) and offer it as YOUR advice - well, this is logical and rational. Pretending to hear a magical God and pretend that IT has offered some advice (or commandment) and offer this advice on ITS behalf - this is a logical fallacy: argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to athority).

 

[Big Chiller]

Most of it predates him by a thousand years - starting with the One God, the central matter of the book.

God being the author of it changes this view and other than that predating doesn't make one the better. Quran is the last holy book and is protectected from changes until the end of the world.

 

[Ja'far at-Tahir]

Why are you focusing so much on coins and in this coin in particular? I would also like to ask, have you even really researched the Zoroastrian faith and it's history? You seem to be making a lot of assumptions here.

No one caught this?

Caught what, exactly?

Yes, I agree that the Fire-Alters are clearly Zoroastrian AS WELL AS the Crescent and Star sitting between the Fire Alters - they are ALSO a Zoroastrian symbol. THAT much is clearly evident on the pre-Islamic Sassanid Persia King Khostau II coin. see below.

Whom said the symbol was Zoroastrian? Where is this said? Where your evidence for such a claim? Or did you just make an assumption?

See, we BOTH made the assumption that the Star and Crescent was "Islamic" (because it appears above Mosques).

Actually, I never made this assumption. I know, very well infact, that originally the "star and crescent," wasn't an Islamic symbol in the begining. Infact, given the Pagan origins of the symbol a lot of Muslims infact do not like the symbol (I am one), it plays no important part in Islam and really, the only reason it's associated with Muslims and Islam is because the Ottoman Turks adopted the symbol after they took the city of Byzantium (Constantinople/Istanbul). It's not uncommon for Empires to adopt symbols and so forth of the states they conquered.

I really don't think you understand Islamic history, a lot of this is pretty standard stuff that I would assume, anyone with a working knowledge of Islam or think they can debate and reinvent Islamic history, would know this.

This is more evidence that "Islam" (the belief system) evolved from

No, it's not, at all. You're making a lot of assumptions here. Case in point your posting of this coin, as if it were some smoking gun for whatever, when it's not. Infact, I would like to point out that at the bottom of the coin, on the obverse side, it says, bism Allah which means "in the name of God."

 

[Big Chiller]

Actually, I never made this assumption. I know, very well infact, that originally the "star and crescent," wasn't an Islamic symbol in the begining. Infact, given the Pagan origins of the symbol a lot of Muslims infact do not like the symbol (I am one), it plays no important part in Islam and really, the only reason it's associated with Muslims and Islam is because the Ottoman Turks adopted the symbol after they took the city of Byzantium (Constantinople/Istanbul). It's not uncommon for Empires to adopt symbols and so forth of the states they conquered.

The "star and crescent" definitely do not play any important role in Islam and aren't present at the origin of islam.

 

[Michael]

Ja'far,

I see your point. When you left out the star and crescent (and as this is generally considered Islamic symbolism - I mean, it is often found at the highest point on many Mosques) I assumed you did so thinking it was Islamic. Yes I agree the Star and Crescent was not originally Islamic - although it is now associated with Islam by most Muslims and in that sense is considered by most Muslims to be Islamic. This is evidence that Muslims incorporated some earlier symbolism into what is now considered mainstream "Islam".


Try to see things from a secularists POV. However Christian mythology got into the Qur'an, it wasn't via magic. Trying to uncover HOW is what we're talking about in this thread. The Authors in the book suggest Islam split of from Christianity and over time developed into a new religion. The evidence they have is partly based on ancient coins. In this theory Mohammad didn't exist. It's a reasonable theory based on the evidence at hand.

Another theory is that Mohammad was a Christian Patriarch who was later somewhat deified as a Prophet.

It may be somewhere in between the two?



Does, anyone here have any other logical and rational theories on how the religion Islam and the Qur'an came into existence? How did Christianity and Christian Mythology come to make up the majority of Islam?


I'm still studying the archeological evidence,

Michael

 

[Michael]

I don't want to get sidetracked but most Muslims think of the star and crescent (which is about 5000 years old and actually predates any use by the Turks) as being Islamic.

IMO why shouldn't they? It's as "Islamic" as any of the many Biblical stories in the Qur'an. The're also pre-Islamic and most are pre-Xian, pre-Judaism.

 

[iceaura]

Most of it predates him by a thousand years - starting with the One God, the central matter of the book.
”
God being the author of it changes this view

No, it doesn't. "Abraham" would still be the origin - the major conduit or whatever - for much more of the Quran than Muhammed.

The "star and crescent" definitely do not play any important role in Islam

Yes, they do.

In real life Islam, that is - are we supposed to ignore all that stuff?

 

[Ja'far at-Tahir]

Yes, they do.

Nope, wrong again.

In real life Islam, that is - are we supposed to ignore all that stuff?

I have already explained how the "star and crescent," came to be known as an "Islamic symbol." Not only this but symbols don't really play any role in Islam at all. Infact during the time of the Prophet (pbuh) and shortly thereafter, the flags that were flown were one solid color, usually green, black or white. It's also hilarious how you said "in real life Islam," in response to Muslims talking about the symbol in relation to Islam, a religion that they practice in real-life. Is "real-life," Islam only how the Westerners define it? Seems like it.

 

[(Q)]

And how exactly is Muhammad (pbuh) seccond fiddle to Abraham (pbuh) the Quran was bestowed upon him wasn't it?

No, the Quran was all made up by the men of the time.

 

[Ja'far at-Tahir]

Try to see things from a secularists POV. However Christian mythology got into the Qur'an, it wasn't via magic. Trying to uncover HOW is what we're talking about in this thread. The Authors in the book suggest Islam split of from Christianity and over time developed into a new religion. The evidence they have is partly based on ancient coins. In this theory Mohammad didn't exist. It's a reasonable theory based on the evidence at hand.

Not necessarily. Again, I have posted evidence that would suggest that Muhammad (saw) and the early ummah, did infact exist. I would also say that you can't really use coins to explain the entire history of Islam, Muhammad (saw) or the early ummah (not saying this is necessarily the case in regards to the book) or the development thereof. I would also say, that a reasonable theory should also take into account presently established history and known archaeological evidence.

Another theory is that Mohammad was a Christian Patriarch who was later somewhat deified as a Prophet.

This however, taken at face value, would seem like a reasonable hypothesis.

 

[iceaura]

Yes, they do.
”
Nope, wrong again.

I'm sorry, but the crescent especially, and the star, have been at the center of quite a bit of controversy and trouble and so forth - things like the symbols on ambulances, abuse of the images by various people - and in every case Muslim people have been featured as having strong objections or issues regarding them, on the grounds that they are important to Muslims.

Again: we, the outside world, is not privileged to be able to distinguish the repositories of real Islam from the rest. We have to take Muslims as we find them, and quite a few of them attach considerable importance to those symbols on the grounds that they are Muslim or Islamic symbols.

I have already explained how the "star and crescent," came to be known as an "Islamic symbol."

That doesn't matter here. However it came about, it is now the case.

 

[Ja'far at-Tahir]

Again: we, the outside world, is not privileged to be able to distinguish the repositories of real Islam from the rest. We have to take Muslims as we find them, and quite a few of them attach considerable importance to those symbols on the grounds that they are Muslim or Islamic symbols.

In other words, Western non-Muslims get to pick and choose, what is and isn't Islam in which ever way suits them. Not everyone among the laity is well versed in Islam or Islamic history, this is true but it doesn't mean that you (non-Muslims) can pick and choose what you, whom don't even believe or practice Islam, what Islam is and what Muslims really believe and so forth.

Not only this, I have already explained why Muslims would think this. The history of the symbol is important here and it can't be sweeped aside. You don't even know what the fuck we're presently talking about.

That doesn't matter here. However it came about, it is now the case.

Are you fucking autistic? We are talking about the history of Islam and the very early years of Islam in particular, if you can't keep up with the present conversation between Michael and myself, then why bother responding?

 

[iceaura]

In other words, Western non-Muslims get to pick and choose, what is and isn't Islam in which ever way suits them.

No, the exact opposite - we do not, as you do, get to pick and choose what is really Islam and what isn't. We are given whatever Muslims think Islam is - any and every significant brand of Muslim. The genital mutilators, the suicide bombers, the persecutors of authors and cartoonists, the abusers of women on the streets of my city, the anti-evolutionists and believers in Noah's Flood, we don't get to simply tell them they are not being proper Muslims, that their Islam is defective.

We are talking about the history of Islam and the very early years of Islam in particular

The history of what is now Islam, that would be.

The history of, for example, the current importance of the crescent and star as Islamic symbols to many Muslims - part of Islam, now, for many Muslims.

 

[Big Chiller]

No, the exact opposite - we do not, as you do, get to pick and choose what is really Islam and what isn't. We are given whatever Muslims think Islam is - any and every significant brand of Muslim. The genital mutilators, the suicide bombers, the persecutors of authors and cartoonists, the abusers of women on the streets of my city, the anti-evolutionists and believers in Noah's Flood, we don't get to simply tell them they are not being proper Muslims, that their Islam is defective.

Well excuse me Mr. playing dumb but you do get to tell the genital mutilators, the suicide bombers, and the abusers of women that they are not being muslims at all.

 

[Ja'far at-Tahir]

The genital mutilators,

Strictly an African practice of which not only has nothing to with Islam would infact be haram. Where else is this done outside of the African states? No where.

the suicide bombers,

Suicide is a sin and is thus haram. Killing civilians is again haram and is strictly against Islamic warfare jurisprudence.

the persecutors of authors

There is many who would disagree with this. Also, again, I have already mentioned a specific Imam, whom shared the same title as Imam Khomeini whom disagreed with his politics and a lot of the policies/acts that happened under him.

cartoonists,

Again, there is many who would disagree with this.

the abusers of women on the streets of my city,

This isn't Islam specific and exists everywhere.

the anti-evolutionists and believers in Noah's Flood,

This is getting a bit ridiculous now.

we don't get to simply tell them they are not being proper Muslims, that their Islam is defective.

That isn't what I'm saying. Even in al-Qur'an it says and warns against those whom say they believe and are doing X in the name of Islam but are infact going against Islam. Just because X person thinks X is halal in Islam, doesn't make it so and it's not necessarily the fault of that person. If they were told this Islam then most of the laity would go on to think X is really halal in Islam. Case in point, female genital mutilation. This is specifically haram and isn't practiced anywhere else other than the African states but yet, there is those there whom there would think that this halal in Islam. All of this is easy to understand and like I have said a million fucking times, the ummah isn't a homogenous entity.

I'm sorry all of this conflicts with your hysteria. The funny thing is, you don't use this method of analysis and judgement to any other group other than Islam and Muslims, hmm, wonder why? I also think it's hilarious that Westerners always try to joke and say "you're stuck in the past, blah blah blah Xth century blah blah blah," when your views of Muslims hasn't changed since the crusades, we're still the inherently violent, barbaric, backwards, agressive, etc, monsters.

The history of, for example, the current importance of the crescent and star as Islamic symbols to many Muslims - part of Islam, now, for many Muslims.

Again, that isn't what were talking about you fuckwit, have you not read the thread or are you just here to criticize Islam and try to find chinks in the armor, as it were? Honestly, can Islam not be discussed in this forum without a horde of assclowns popping out of the woodwork to give their moronic 2 cents "Islam is ebbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbil!!!!!!one!!!!!! EVILLLLLLLLLLL." This thread is the perfect example. The topic is the early history of Islam, the early ummah and the development thereof and the historicity of Muhammad (saw) and the early ummah. Yet, you fucks pop with your non-sequiter bullshit.

 

[S.A.M.]

I don't want to get sidetracked but most Muslims think of the star and crescent (which is about 5000 years old and actually predates any use by the Turks) as being Islamic.

No they don't. Everyone knows that the crescent is used as a symbol of Muslims - just like domes and minarets on masjids. It is a popular symbol, not a religious one.

 

[IamJoseph]

[/B]This is more evidence that "Islam" (the belief system) evolved from and incorporated much of it's traditions, myths and symbolism from earlier faiths in and around the area where it arose. Possibly from the Zoroastrian-Christian faiths in Syria.

Absolutely incorrect. The Zoroastrian belief is not so old. Islam does not follow the practices of Christianity.

Islam emerged from its knowledge of the Jewish religion, after the Jews were exiled in Babylon and Arabia after the first temple was destroyed in 586 BCE.

Between 586 BCE and the advent of Islam, there is a period of 2,600 years, and Islam emerged when a vacuum was created after the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE - there was no monotheism of the pre-Islamic arabs for those 2,600 years; while there was with the Jews. During this time they had first hand experience of the Jewish belief system and its observances - the Jews held the most prominent positions in the Arab world, in medicine, accountancy and their wealth management. Subsequently, we find that the laws of Islam have no connection with Zorashtrian or Christianity but only with Judaism. This extends not just to laws, but also traditions and interpretations of obervances, like 24 hour burials, saying a blessing when a sacred name is mentioned, facing one's revered place when praying and in burials, etc - these did not come from Islam but from Judaism - ego prevents its admission, but no one can deny factual history.

 

[Big Chiller]

There are many similarities between Judaism and Islam and many muslims are aware of that.

 

[IamJoseph]

No they don't. Everyone knows that the crescent is used as a symbol of Muslims - just like domes and minarets on masjids. It is a popular symbol, not a religious one.

Can you explain the significance of this symbol?

The 6 point star is a Jewish symbol, made of two intersecting triangles, denoting the event of the revelation at Mount Sinai. Namely, one triangle points to the heavens from the earth, the other from the earth to the heavens - they meet at a union symbolising the spiritual and physical interaction within the star of David. This symbolises the union which occured at Mount Sinai, which is regarded by Jews as the greatest event in the universe, one even surpassing Creation itself.

 

[IamJoseph]

There are many similarities between Judaism and Islam and many muslims are aware of that.

Whereas Zoroastrianism also included a host of pagan beliefs.