Posted on 04/23/2012 4:47:09 AM PDT by SJackson
Obviously, if worship of Jesus as the Son of God was acceptable to “Moslems” then it would be an easy leap from defender to plunderer of the trade routes.
(1) The evidence for Jesus of Nazareth and the evidence for Muhammad of the Quraysh are two separate discussions. We have four canonical biographies of the former within less than a century of his recorded death. For the latter we have one accepted biography from almost 150 years after his recorded death.
(2) Various movements of conquering peoples have occurred in history without having a distinct religious motive or a clear originator. The Khamag Mongols had no religious agenda and had already begun their enormous empire building project before Genghis Khan was born. Likewise the French conquest of Europe had begun before Napoleon's name was known. The Roman Empire had no clear progenitor or religious basis and the Persian conquest of most of the known world was also spontaneous and non-ideological.
History shows that peoples conquer first because they can, and invent supporting ideologies and align behind leaders later on in order to consolidate and legitimize their gains.
I am not saying that Spencer's case is unassailable, only that your objections are not well-supported.
The Mongols, and all related people of the steppe, showed a continuous history of raids, invasion and conquest for thousands of years.
The Arabs had a history similarly thousands of years old. Lots of raids, but few or no successful conquests. Then a century with one of the greatest conquests in history, then a return to centuries of no conquest. For that matter, a history of being invaded.
My question is simply what can account for the discrepancy.
I think the simplest explanation is the birth of a new religion.
I agree the evidence for Jesus is not identical to that for Mohammed. I merely pointed out that similar objections to whether he really existed have been made. Which they have.
I plan to read the book. However, my initial impression is that of the old science saw, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
IOW, the lack of evidence does not prove he didn’t exist, only that the evidence he existed is minimal.
Scientists and historians have for centuries now been claiming that all sorts of mythical characters had no basis in fact. Quite often as additional evidence is found it shows the guy really existed and may have been exaggerated. But very seldom that there was no basis in a real person.
The Xia and Shang dynasties in China, for instance.
The Arabs of the 600s had a similar population explosion and it occurred when the Byzantine empire was weak.
Patricia Crone has pointed out that before the canonical text of the Koran was established, the Caliphs of the Muslim empire called themselves khalifa allaha "God's deputy" and the title did not change until a generation after the canonical text was disseminated into khalifa rasul allaha or "deputy of God's prophet."
In the case of Christianity, the doctrines and history were well-established traditions among believers long before Christianity had any political or military significance. In the case of Islam, the doctrines and history seem to have been elaborated long after the movement had become a powerful force in geopolitics.
Interesting point about the Northmen.
However, the Normans, after their period of rapid expansion, did not turn into a passive people.
In various ways and different degrees Russia, France, the British Empire and the United States are Norman in their origins and character.
The Swedes even had a later episode of being a Great Power for more than a century.
The Arabs have nothing like this. They flared up, died down and never came back to life.
Also the Normans were never anything vaguely resembling a unified state. Their raids and conquests were private ventures, as can be seen in its most extreme form in the conquest of S. Italy and Sicily.
The Arab Empire, OTOH, within about a century had spread as a more or less unified state from China to France.
It doesn’t matter if Mo existed or not.
The fact that over a billion moslems believe he did is the point.
Trying to disprove that Mo existed to moslems is akin to trying to put out fire with gasoline.
Besides, Mo’s (alleged) disciple “Umar” did exist. We know that from historical accounts of Iran’s invasion by bedo Arabs. “Umar” is/was said to be one of Mo’s immediate disciples, but when Umar & his army attacked Iran, Mo wasn’t in the picture (he had already died, several yrs earlier).
By all accounts, Mo or his disciples were bedo Arabs and were illiterate.
As for the Quran, it has been rewritten several times, since Mo & Umar’s time, over the centuries. It couldn’t have been originally written by Mohamad.
Plus the Quran is a mish mash of preceding ‘holy’ books. IMO, that’s why in parts it is disjointed, fragmented, and just doesn’t make sense.
The original Arabic version was written in Egyptian arabic, I read somewhere a while ago - this was written a couple of centuries, I think, after Mo’s death (anyhow it was definitely written *after* Mo’s death).
The Saudi only accept the version written in Saudi arabic as the “official” one. Then again, the Saudi Royal family are the “official” custodians of the “holy” cities of Mecca & Medina. And, Saudi Arabia is the birthplace of Mo... well, allegedly.
But, I do believe Mohamad did exist & declared himself a “prophet”, once upon a time.
Have you heard about an ancient koran found in Germany which shows different passages from the officially accepted koran of today?
Yes! Was also thinking about that.
Two links:
Lost Archives:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120008793352784631.html
Indiana Jones meets the Da Vinci Code (published in 2008):
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JA15Ak03.html
Just one example of how the Quran, generally Mo, Islam & Islamic traditions have been influenced by preceding religions, religious books & customs:
The “Lost Archive” in #68 says “Islamic tradition emphasizes oral transmission” in reciting the Quran, because Mo was illiterate & his followers had to memorize his words as revealed to him by Allah....
Well, the Avesta and the Gathas in Zoroastrian tradition are orally transmitted as well, particularly by Zoroastrian priests (mobeds). Of course Zoroastrian text and religion are by far older than Islam.
Post Arab-Islam invasion of Iran oral transmission & reciting the Avesta from memory became necessities, because the Moslem-Arabs burned as many Zoroastrian texts as they could find.
But, prior to that, it was also the tradition because the Gathas (17 hymns believed to be spoken by Zoroaster himself) are in rhythmic poetic verse form, in ancient Prakrit & Sanskrit (old Aryan languages). The root word for the Gatha is “gai”, which means speak, sing, recite or extol.
An interesting connection between the “rhythmic poetic verse form” of the Gathas and Persian (Iranian tradition) is when one looks at Iranian literature over the centuries, even post-Islam. Iranians are not good at prose, but excel in poetry, with numerous fairly famous poets right up to present day.
Most notably, Ferdowsi’s famous Shah-Nameh (Book of Kings) which is about reviving the Persian language and pre-Islamic history (written around 10th century AD), is mostly written in “rhythmic poetic verse”, rather than prose.
I think you're focusing on West of today's Saudi Arabia, rather than East.
In relation to Mohamad & his followers, take a look at the section entitled "Raids on Caravans - Caravans & Trade as a Source of Wealth” in this page
Completely agree w/ opportunistic nature of Islam, etc...
Imo, Mo did exist, but his "prophethood" was a myth. To be precise, in Arabic "Rasul" means "messenger", not "prophet". So, in Arabic, Mohamad is known as "Rasul Allah" (messenger of Allah).
The other incentive was about economics or the acquisition of wealth - link in #70.
I don’t think that’s correct. Omar Sharif was born a Maronite Catholic Michel Dmitri Shalhoub and then converted to Islam
Correct. it's like they got a momentary jolt and then returned to somnolence. Of course to add to what you said -- "Arab" truly means just the Nejd and Hejaz Bedouins. The Semitic tribes of Yemen, Syria including the Canaanites etc are/were not 'Arab' in that sense, neither were/are the Egyptians.
I don't believe the Soviets could have struck back. the Germans were just too strong. They swept straight into the European half of Russia with next to no issue. Only American arms and support kept Russia propped up.
If that had not been there and if (I know, many "ifs") the Japanese had hit Russia in the back in Syberi, the Nazis would have ridden rough-shod straight into Central Asia.
What would have happened then is the same with any over-stretched Empire, especially one that over-stretches so quickly -- it would have broken.
Good analogy. The Duchy of Lithuania came about when the Mongols had destroyed Kievan Rus and the Poles were not strong enough to take advantage.
It's like a civilizational virus -- destroying civilizations. Look at Yemen, Egypt, Persia -- centers of civilization once and now.... While India's cancerous part (pakistan) was removed, it still causes problems...
Not really. The majority of the Spanish population was Orthodox/Catholic while the Visigoth rulers were initially Arian. This wasn't a big gap at the time the moors came over.
Not completely. The Mongols were not united before Genghis Khan. There were various groups: naimans, Kara-khitan etc. Chinghiz Khan did unite them under the idea of the sky-Lord and battle against the decadent city-dwellers.
Likewise the French conquest of Europe had begun before Napoleon's name was known. -- the French conquest of Europe was quasi-religious in the Republican sense, they had a mission. Also, France at that time was 25% of the population of Europe, and heavily militarized due to the revolution. Even a highly militarized, but small state like Prussia could not stand up to this rag-tag army that used unconventional tactics.
incidently from 1800 to 1900 the population of France remained nearly stagnant while England's population nearly quadrupled and Germany's quadrupled. Some suggest this was due to the French learning different methods of birth-control in their travels east.
True, I've been lately reading up on Heracles who strangely enough shows the same basis in a real person of the 2nd millenia BC
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.