Duvduv

Interesting interview with Ibn Warraq. Why would Moses be mentioned 100 times in the Quran and Mohammed only 4 times?
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/01/ro...e-origins.html
However, I would distinguish between the historical record of the origins of Islam and some of the political rhetoric in the discussion having nothing to do with the origins of Islam.

mountainman

The similarity is that both regimes had a very large empire to rule and they therefore wanted to control the populace by some mind fuck rather than using the troops. The implementation of a centralised state monotheistic cult had a history of serving such a purpose, as the precedent set by Ardashir's control over the Persian empire c.222 CE clearly demonstrates. All that was needed was for the implementation of a canonized "Holy Writ", and the establishment of distinctive architecture throughout the empire to be ruled.

The centralised monotheistic canonical islamic military state used the blueprint of the centralised monotheistic canonical christian military state. And the centralised monotheistic canonical christian military state used the blueprint of the centralised monotheistic canonical (Sassanid) persian military state.

Duvduv

MM, personally I think this would be a very good subject for a book in terms of comparative history or religion. Interestingly enough, whereas the Imperial Christian religion was able to eliminate its adversaries, the situation in Islam was different, perhaps by virtue of the very fact of a lack of a central clerical hierarchy under the Caliphate in the Sunni universe.

Thus the survival not only of Shiism but other assorted heretodoxical sects was almost guaranteed.

Ironically, the Safavid dynasty sought to exterminate Sunni Islam in Persia by destroying their mosques and eliminating their clergy. Thus, the only remnant of Sunnism in Persia/Iran has been in the western region that had been under the Ottomans next to Iraq.

But it should be remembered also that the typical description of the emergence of the Shia in the post-Mohammed period is based purely on the unsupported claims of the Shia themselves. Sunni constantly point to the fact that before the Safavid period there is no evidence of any Shia regime anywhere including the "Ismailis" in Egypt (who at that time were probably a variant of Sunnis anyway). The claims of Shia rebellions and such have no documented evidence at all. If anything, Shiism emerged syncretically with some sect in Lebanon such as the Druze or Alawites based on very possibly a pre-Islamic religion of Imamism that was morphed with Islam to varying degrees, and most strongly with what became the Twelver Shia.

Duvduv

I would go so far as to suggest that veneration of Ali, whose name does not appear in the Quran, was a pre-Islamic object of veneration ( not unlike the Baptist figure) by an Imamist sect whose personality was brought into Sunni Islam to integrate the Imamists, who never fully integrated and maintained their Ali veneration in various forms, including what became Shiism in Persia.
Thus it might be incorrect to say that the Druze etc. broke from Islam. Rather they were never joined to Islam in the first place.

sotto voce

Everyone follows Christ. :grin:

Duvduv

With all due respect Sotto Voce, I would prefer engaging in substantive discussion instead of just posting comments or chatting. And I also prefer staying away from personal bickering the way some folks do here. So I will be more than happy to discuss the substance of the thread with you or anyone else.

sotto voce

Is that supposed to be comedy?

Provided it is off topic, and slanders Christians? Is that the Duvduv definition of 'substantive'?

You people just cannot resist preaching your deep, abiding faith in Jesus. Sooner or latter, you succumb.

Duvduv

We are not talking about Christians. This thread discusses the origins of Mohammed, etc. There would be other places to engage in apologetics.

sotto voce

You're top posting, you're talking about Christians.

Sheshbazzar

Derail alert.