Oh you are spoiling for a fight aren't you?
Let me pull up a chair.
Posted on 07/26/2003 1:09:51 PM PDT by truthandlife
Oh you are spoiling for a fight aren't you?
Let me pull up a chair.
In non-Arab sources of the time
there is no document that mentions the name Mohammed
other than one very brief citation
that refers to an Arabian king called Mohammed.
It is possible that the Mohammed
mentioned in the Koran
did in fact exist
but it is not proven
any more than is proven the existence of Rama, Moses or Icarus.
On the claim of Christian origins, it seems dubious to me. What is true is that Nestorian Christians were the schoolmasters of the Muslims in the early decades. The Muslims were illiterate, an army not scholars. Theology in any learned sense was undoubtedly borrowed from Syrian sources, and that is noticable in the first rationalist school of theology in Islam, the Mutazilites.
But you don't have to be literate (meaning, write everything down) to have a teaching or a tradition, in legalistic forms and practices, a state organization, or long bits of what you and I would recognize as "literature" in oral form. 95% or more of the population was illiterate in every society on earth until quite recent times. Anyone who concluded from that that the ones who read and wrote did everything would be very far from the mark.
Ghengis Khan couldn't read or write. The Frankish and Goth kings who conquered the western Roman empire could not read or write. Muhammad and his third successor as caliph, Omar, conquered much of Arabia (the former) and most of the near east (the latter - not Muhammad's doing), and it is not in any way out of the ordinary for such conquerors that they couldn't read or write.
Did such conquerors learn things from the societies they ruled over after their military successes? Certainly. They also reconfigured those societies drastically, sometimes out of recognition.
One must first distinguish Muslim orthodoxy, which is self evidently a fable, from the usual historian's understanding. Did a big angel appear out of the sky and dictate verses that had existed in Arabic since the begining of the world to Muhammad in a cave? No. Did 70 scholars set the task to translate the old testament into greek miraculously all produce the exact same text independently? No. You knew that already.
Why were such fables made up and told? Obviously, to stabilize texts, to end the process of revision and diversification. Adopting certain books as canonical and rejecting others as apocryphal is the same basic "move". There were other theological reasons at the time, too. The Muslim teaching was obviously an attempt to recast the doctrine of a word of God pre-existing, as in "logos theology".
There wasn't any school of literalism in Islam until after rationalist theology got going, established itself, and began enforcing new notions hashed out by scholars. Literalism was a reaction against theological innovation. Some sided with the unsophisticated against learned theologians passing off their own recent reasoning as Muhammad's intent.
For example, Mutazilite theologians were persecuting for a doctrine of free will, because that is how they addressed the problem of evil (in a way similar to Origen, among the church fathers). But all the evidence is that Muhammad had been a fatalist, as was traditional in Arabia. Certainly whether Muhammad was or wasn't, many of the common Muslim (soldiers) were. Ibn Hanbal rejected the Mutazilites as human innovators, and in doing so founded literalism as a legalistic school. He was persecuted for it in his own time; the Mutazilites were in power with the caliphs on their side.
People before had made up new laws by claiming some tradition from the prophet. Understand, Muhammad had been effectively king and lawgiver, and the judge who had presided at a thousand disputes. If you said Muhammad said or did something, it was much more than a claim that some man had at some time said some such thing. It was more like a supreme court ruling.
It was instead a legal argument that whatever you said happened, was the only right and proper way to do something covered by that story. People made laws by telling stories about how Muhammad had handled some similar case. They didn't really care whether the story was true (any more than liberals believe in emenations from penumbras), they cared whether it was a good law. The story form was just the way it was discussed, promulgated, remembered, and made legitimate.
So at some point there was a mass of all this stuff, and to get it to stop burgeoning and barging, above all to stop contradicting each other with rival rulings on each side of some question, they wrote down complilations of them and then said "and there aren't any more - the rest are spurious, recent inventions". But they had been doing the story elaboration thing for almost 200 years by then.
They learned grammar from Nestorian Christians. It is not surprising that written Arabic owes much to Syrian ideas or borrowed Syrian words. It is not evidence that it was all originally Syriac Christian writings. In the denial of the incarnation, which was there from the begining, it sided with Judaism. In its emphasis on "the day" (the last judgment), it echoed Persian religion of the time. (Up until late medieval times, Islam was practically defined as belief in God, the prophet, and the day. The last has lost ground in modern times as in any way central, but that is new).
You only have to know the standard theological positions at the time in other traditions to see where it comes from. The catholic position was that you needed an institution, the church, to decide which texts were authoritative and which were not. Which put that institution above any text, and authorized whatever interpretions it approved of. The Jews on the other hand allowed a decentralized rabbinic commentary, which grew around the text to the point where the latter almost disappeared. Interpretation or a hierarchy of authority are obviously necessary if there is no prior agreement on what text matters or what it means.
Sunni Islam rejected the idea of a hierarchy. Shia Islam did not, and is not literalist in the same way. There were schools of theology who took the interpretation route, and took it quite far from original Muslim beliefs in whatever direction their reasoning lead them. Without a hierarchy in any religious legitimacy sense (not bishops or ayatollahs I mean), but with aggressive political means used in theological disputes. They tried to impose their innovations on the rest, accusing of unbelief anyone who did not agree with their reasoning e.g. about free will or whatever.
Traditionalists at the time just wanted to keep on believing the same stuff they'd believed when they came out of the desert. They thought, it was good enough for Muhammad and Omar and all the people of their time, and we conquered the near east believing it, not following the latest rationalist fad.
So, how do you eliminate the possibility of interpretion or authority, changing the tradition? You maintain the tradition was fixed in stone before the begining of the world, and any change in it is a human innovation and an error. Someone will argue it really meant x unless you stipulate that it was perfectly clear, no ambiguity, it means what everyone who understands Arab grammar hears in it.
They actually had debates where one side would say, "logic is the tool of reason", and the other side would say "logic is Greek and merely human. Arabic grammar is all anyone needs to know. With that you can read the Koran." They didn't want to be ruled by schoolmasters, in other words. They didn't want to change their minds, not one iota.
Understand that there were powerful factions very much intent on changing their minds, elaborately. And perfectly willing to chop off heads to get their way. Literalism and its (to reason) absurd structure of willful pigheaded stubbornness was a defensive reaction, a stopping of the ears.
A Hanbalite would be presented some argument about freedom of the will, and told he was an apostate (and would be executed) if he didn't either agree with it or provide a logically valid counterargument against the reasoning in support of it. He would reply instead, "this is not in the Koran, I am not required to have any opinion on it, it is heretical innovation".
The whole idea was to distinguish as sharply as possible between human innovations and a supposedly divine original. The purpose was simply and directly to de-authorized any human innovation, to remove any legislative power from mankind. Because legislative authority in the hands of others was experienced as oppressive.
Note that is after the early to mid 70s heyday of some revisionists on the subject of early Muslim history, neatly exploding their whole argument. Which was never very coherent to begin with, based on obvious misconceptions.
I've written extensively about this subject here on Free Republic before. I can send you copies of my old posts on it, if you are interested - or repost them in this thread if you prefer.
Medieval primary sources - http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook2.html
Sebeos Armenian history - http://rbedrosian.com/seb9.htm
Chapter 30, relevant highlights (the rest are direct quotes, except the section headings which are my own)
- Muhammad -
In that period a certain one of them, a man of the sons of Ishmael named Muhammad, became prominent [t'ankangar]. A sermon about the Way of Truth, supposedly at God's command, was revealed to them, and [Muhammad] taught them to recognize the God of Abraham, especially since he was informed and knowledgeable about Mosaic history. Because the command had [g104] come from on High, he ordered them all to assemble together and to unite in faith. Abandonning the reverence of vain things, they turned toward the living God, who had appeared to their father--Abraham. Muhammad legislated that they were not to [123] eat carrion, not to drink wine, not to speak falsehoods, and not to commit adultery. He said: "God promised that country to Abraham and to his son after him, for eternity. And what had been promised was fulfilled during that time when [God] loved Israel. Now, however, you are the sons of Abraham, and God shall fulfill the promise made to Abraham and his son on you. Only love the God of Abraham, and go and take the country which God gave to your father Abraham. No one can successfully resist you in war, since God is with you".
- The Muslim army invades the near east -
...The emperor of the Byzantines was no longer able to assemble his troops against them. [The Arabs] divided their army into three parts. One part went to Egypt, taking [territory] as far as Alexandria. The second part went north [to war] against the Byzantine empire. In the twinkling of an eye they had seized [territory stretching] from the Farthest Sea to the shores of the great Euphrates river, as well as Edessa and all the cities of Mesopotamia, on the other side of the [Euphrates] river. The third part [of the Arab army] was sent to the east, against the kingdom of Iran.
In that period the kingdom of Iran grew weaker, and their army was divided into three parts. Then the Ishmaelite troops who were gathered in the east, went and besieged Ctesiphon, since the king of Iran resided there. Troops from the land of Media [zawr ashxarhin Marats'], some 80,000 armed men under their general Rostom assembled and went against [the Arabs] in battle. Then [the Arabs] left the city and crossed to the other side of [127] the Tigris river. [The Iranians] also crossed the river, pursuing them. And they did not stop until they reached their borders, at the village called Hert'ichan. [The Iranians]continued to pursue them, [eventually] going and encamping in the plain. Present were Mushegh Mamikonean, son of Dawit', the general of Armenia with 3,000 armed men, and also prince Grigor, lord of Siwnik', with 1,000 men. [The Iranian and Arab armies] attacked each other, and the Iranian forces fled before them. But [the Arabs] pursued them, putting them to the sword. All the principal naxarars died, as did general Rostom. They killed Mushegh and two of his sister's sons, as well as Grigor, the lord of Siwnik', along with one son. Some [of the Iranian troops] escaped and fled back to their own land. The remnants of the Iranian forces assembled in Atrpatakan at one spot and made Xorhoxazat their general. Then they hurried to Ctesiphon and took the treasury of the [g107] kingdom, the inhabitants of the cities, and their king, and then hurried to get back to Atrpatakan. But as soon as they had departed and gone some distance, the Ishmaelite army unexpectedly came upon them. Horrified, [the Iranians] abandoned the treasury and the inhabitants of the city, and fled. Their king also fled, winding up with the southern troops. Now [the Arabs] took the entire treasury and returned to Ctesiphon, taking the inhabitants of the cities along too. [128] And they pillaged the entire country...
- The Muslims invade Armenia -
The corruptive army [of the Arabs] arose from Asorestan and came through the valley route to the land of Taron. They took [Taron], Bznunik' and Aghiovit and then, going to the Berkri valley via Ordspu and Gogovit, poured into Ayrarat. None of the Armenian troops was able to carry the bad news to the awan of Dwin. There were, however, three of the princes who went and gathered the dispersed troops: T'eodoros Vahewuni, [129] Xach'ean Arhaweghean, and Shapuh Amatuni. They fled to Dwin, reached the Metsamor bridge, crossed it, destroyed it, and then they went to take the bad news to the awan. All the people of the land had assembled in the fortress, and they had come in harvest time for the vineyards.
T'eodoros went to the city of Naxchawan. The enemy Busha reached Metsamawr bridge but was unable to cross over. [g108] However, [the Arabs] had as a guide Vardik, prince of Mokk', who was called Aknik ["Little Eyes"]. Crossing the Metsamawr bridge, they raided the entire country. They accumulated a very great amount of loot and captives, then came and encamped by the edge of the Xosrakert forest.
On the fifth day [of the Arabs' sojourn], on a Friday, the 30th of the month of Tre [=the fourth month in the Armenian calendar, November], they came against the city [of Dwin] and it was betrayed into their hands. For they set fires here and there, and drove away the guards on the wall by smoke and by shooting arrows. They then erected ladders, scaled the wall and, once inside, opened the city gates. The army of the enemy poured inside and put most of the city to the sword. Then, taking the loot and booty of the city, they departed and encamped at their same campsite. After passing some days there, they arose and departed by the same route they had come. They had a multitude of captives with them, some [130] 35,000 souls. Now the prince of Armenia, the lord of Rshtunik', who had been concealed in an ambuscade in the district of Gogovit, went against [the Arabs] with few troops. But he was unable to resist, and so fled before them. [The Arabs] pursued [Rshtunik's troops] killing many of them. Then they went to Asorestan. This occurred in the days of kat'oghikos Ezr.
As a result of that battle, an order came from the emperor [granting] the military command [zawravarut'eann] and the dignity of patrician to T'eodoros, lord of Rshtunik'.
All this took place as a result of kat'oghikos Nerses who succeeded Ezr on the kat'oghikosal throne.
- Omar (Amrh) was their leader, and later conquests -
When the sons of Ishmael had arisen and issued from the desert of Sinai, their king Amrh did not accompany them. But when[the Arabs] had militarily routed both kingdoms, seizing from Egypt to the great Taurus mountain, from the Western Sea [the Atlantic Ocean] to Media and Xuzhastan, they then emerged with the royal army [and went] to the [g109] natural borders of the holdings of Ishmael. Then the [Arab] [131] king gave an order to assemble boats and many sailors and to navigate southwardly, going east to Pars, to Sagastan, to Sind, to Srman, to the land of Turan and to Makuran as far as the borders of India. The troops swiftly prepared and implemented the command. They burned every country, taking loot and booty. They then turned and made expeditions on the waves of the sea, and reached their own places.
We heard this [account] from men [who had returned] from captivity in Xuzhastan Tachkastan, who themselves had been eye-witnesses to the events described and narrated them to us.
Sebeos Armenian history - http://rbedrosian.com/seb9.htm
I don't believe in Germany you can carry concealed. Bummer.
5.56mm
You get a whole page of sources for medieval history. If you go down to the "Bzyantium" section (1/4 to 1/3 of the way down the scroll bar on the right), one of the links is to a site by Robert Bedrosian, a translator, who provides full e-text translations of half a dozen histories, including Sebeos. It is from his page that the above link is taken.
I hope this helps.
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.