Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 07-22-2008, 12:38 PM

There's an interview here with Ohlig.

Quote:

You advocate the thesis that Islam was not conceived as an independent religion. What proof do you have for this claim?

Ohlig: According to the evidence of Christian literature under Arab rule from the 7th and 8th centuries, as well as from Arab coinage and inscriptions from this period, such as that on the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, the new rulers adhered to a Syrian-Persian form of Christianity that rejected the decisions of the Council of Nicaea. Instead, it regarded Jesus as the messenger, the prophet, the servant of God, but not the physical son of God, who is a strictly unitary being not "adjoined" to any person. The fathers of the Church, for instance, regarded John of Damascus (d. around 750) as a heretic, because his Greek understanding of Christianity did not correspond to their views. There is no mention of a new, independent religion of the Arabs before the 9th century.

. . .

It has been established that the earliest coinage with the motto MHMT appeared in eastern Mesopotamia around 660, made their way westward, and there bilingual coins were stamped with MHMT in the center and muhammad in Arabic script at the edge. These coins bear a Christian iconography, i.e. always with crosses, so that the name muhammad is clearly to be understood as a predicate of Jesus, as in the Sanctus of the mass ("praise be to he that comes...").

. . .

Later, it seems as if this Christological predicate lost its reference, so that it appears in the Koran as a frequently mentioned, nameless prophet, which could then be historicized into the form of an Arab prophet. The earliest source of this historicization is to be found in writings of John of Damascus, who speaks of the pseudo-prophet Mamed. Only later could the wealth of stories of this Mohammed fill out the historical deficit.

Interesting.

But there is some criticism here

Quote:

Even in Germany, the book was perceived very controversially. Famous German orientalists Tilman Nagel and Angelika Neuwirth criticized the approach of, in particular, Christoph Luxenberg, and his new interpretation of the oldest still visible Qur’anic inscriptions on the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem may in fact be very peculiar. As an example, Luxenberg reads muhammad and abdullah not as nouns but rather gerundives (the praised one, the servant, respectively) and assigns both to Jesus (Isa bin Maryam) rather than to the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad. Belonging mainly to the revisionist party, most authors of the compilation cannot really be considered scientifically serious but rather striving for sensation. One typical example might be ‘hobby’ numismatic Volker Popp with his peculiar interpretations of coins found in the 1st and 2nd century AH.

John_of_Damascus' bio sounds a bit improbable, but it seems that he spent the end of his life and died at the Mar Saba monastery. His family were officials in what is described as a Muslim regime.

matthewthomas · 07-22-2008, 12:39 PM

The book appears to be related to The Inarah Otzenhauzen Conference On “The Early History Of Islam And The Koran” March 13-16, 2008

http://www.newenglishreview.org/cust...9/sec_id/19589

Quote:

Originally Posted by review

All scholars who contributed to the collection of essays, Die dunklen Anfänge (Berlin, 2005) [to be published, in 2008, in the United States by Prometheus Books as The Obscure Origins of Islam] and, Der frühe Islam, (Berlin, 2007) [Early Islam] have been invited, scholars Alba Fedeli (University of Milan, Italy), Claude Gilliot (Aix-en-Provence, France), Markus Gross (Germany), Ibn Warraq (USA), Pierre Larcher (Aix-en-Provence, France), Christoph Luxenberg, Noja Noseda (University of Milan, Italy) Karl-Heinz Ohlig (University of Saarlandes, Germany), Volker Popp and Gerd-R. Puin.

Other scholars and researchers who attended were: Hans-Jörg Döhla (Zurich), Geneviève Gobillot (Lyon, France), Christoph Heger, Manfred Kropp (Mainz), Tom Milo (Amsterdam), Filippo Rainieri, Jan M.F. van Reeth (Louvain, Belgium), Dr Johannes Thomas (Paderborn), Gabriel Reynolds (Notre Dame, USA), Keith Small (U.K.), Helmut Waldman (TŸbingen).

The website contains a very brief description of the papers that were presented.

Mt

SkepticalThinker · 07-22-2008, 01:24 PM

This book will no doubt draw criticism, but I think it will be important in that it will draw attention to the lack of scholarly books on the subject of the origins of the Koran and Islam.

Malachi151 · 07-22-2008, 04:33 PM

Interesting, and makes sense. The question now is if the facts support it.

BTW, my understanding of the origins of Islam has always been that it grew out of what were considered heretical Christian sects that were driven out of the Catholic dominated Roman Empire as these sects, along with Jews, were driven East and mingled with the local "pagan" tribes. Out of this amalgam of "heretical" Christians, Jews, Pythagoreans, Neo-Platonist, and local tribesmen, sprang Islam.

jules? · 07-22-2008, 04:45 PM

Just as christianity was Judaism for gentiles so it seems Islam was christianity for Arabs with a a few local gods/spirits/ and genies thrown in for good measure. Syrian Christianity fueled early Islam but whether the founder really existed or simply represented a title is an issue that will rage with no conclusion ever in sight.

I was going to post a thread about the Arab Jesus and how his return is different along with his greasy hair, does it derive from the early Syrian church?

Roger Pearse · 07-23-2008, 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

John_of_Damascus' bio sounds a bit improbable, but it seems that he spent the end of his life and died at the Mar Saba monastery. His family were officials in what is described as a Muslim regime.

The article seems a fairly reasonable summary of his life, off-hand.

When the Arabs conquered Syria and Palestine, they did not evict the Byzantine officials. Rather they simply levied a tax on everything, which left them free to enjoy the proceeds and run an annual war against whoever they felt like. At the time their incursion was seen more as a large-scale raid, rather than a conquest (probably even by themselves), and it was only gradually that it became clear that it was permanent and that the Byzantines were not coming back.

Consequently the official classes continued to exist and to administer things. Correspondence continued to be in Greek. Mosques were built by Greek architects to adapted Greek designs.

One very negative consequence of all this was that a tradition came into existence whereby ruling and responsibility were divorced. The ruler had no duty to the ruled, and the right to raise whatever money he could. He had power, but was not responsible for anything. This custom was perhaps at its worst in Turkish times, when troops were often merely gangs of licensed bandits and pashas merely put there to soak up money before being superceded. The attitude of power without responsibility remains even today.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

gstafleu · 07-23-2008, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Christianity was the predominant religion in Mecca and Yathrib in the 6th century?

Is that necessary for the hypothesis? And, out of curiosity, just what was the predominant religion in that area pre-Islam? I don't know, but I'm interested to know. I seem to remember, vaguely, that there were different Christian-like varieties going around, who did or did not believe in the trinity, who ascribed various natures to Christ, and so on. My, admittedly ill-founded, impression was that this at least in part caused some people to throw their hands into the air and exclaim "Enough, there is only one God and that is God, so there."

Gerard Stafleu

gstafleu · 07-23-2008, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

If you can read German, you'll get some sense of it here:

http://www.verlag-hans-schiler.de/in...90&language=en

Here is a translation of the summary of the book (first the German, then the English):

Quote:

Eine historisch-kritische Rekonstruktion anhand zeitgenössischer Quellen

Der Sammelband zeigt, dass die Anfänge einer koranischen Bewegung einer spezifischen Form von Christentum entsprungen sind und aus Regionen weit östlich des Zweistromlandes stammen, nicht von der arabischen Halbinsel.
---
A historical-critical reconstruction from contemporary sources

The collection shows that the beginnings of the Koranic movement sprang from a specific form of Christianity, and stem from regions far to the East of Mesopotamia, not from the Arabian peninsula.

Gerard Stafleu

Solo · 07-23-2008, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

John_of_Damascus' bio sounds a bit improbable, but it seems that he spent the end of his life and died at the Mar Saba monastery. His family were officials in what is described as a Muslim regime.

The article seems a fairly reasonable summary of his life, off-hand.

When the Arabs conquered Syria and Palestine, they did not evict the Byzantine officials. Rather they simply levied a tax on everything, which left them free to enjoy the proceeds and run an annual war against whoever they felt like. At the time their incursion was seen more as a large-scale raid, rather than a conquest (probably even by themselves), and it was only gradually that it became clear that it was permanent and that the Byzantines were not coming back.

That's silly patter, Roger. The conquest of the world, or bringing it under the rule of God's law, is in Islam's constitution. By the time John D. was born, Islam conquered all of the Arab penninsula and the whole of Persia, and a completely new power structure has been built over the Byzantine and Persian administrations. The ultimate power rested with the caliph who was established in Damascus two generations before John, and continued there until the capital was moved to Baghdad, as the power balance was shifting eastward toward non-Arab muslims and their power bases.

Quote:

Consequently the official classes continued to exist and to administer things. Correspondence continued to be in Greek. Mosques were built by Greek architects to adapted Greek designs.

The "official classes" ceased to exist as such and if they did not convert from Christianity, became dhimmi, clients of the Islamic state subject to the yizyia tax on non-believers. Most importantlly the first legal base of shari'a (fiqh) was being created by Abu Hannafi (699-767), i.e. in John's lifetime.

Quote:

One very negative consequence of all this was that a tradition came into existence whereby ruling and responsibility were divorced. The ruler had no duty to the ruled, and the right to raise whatever money he could. He had power, but was not responsible for anything.

I do not know that this was a "tradition" attributable wholly to Islam as religion, or a religiously based societal model. The tendency to despotism came likely more from the prevalence of miltary rule which was established early and was later re-inforced by the nomadic Turkic and Mongol people who adopted Islam and impressed their miltary and dynastic hierarchies onto the caliphates and the Sunni/Shi'a legal frameworks. I am not denying that the this tradition also dates from Mohammed had a bend toward personal power but it was power which was circumscribed by legal precepts which were as binding for an islamic ruler - with respect to the islamic community - the ummah - as the Christian maxims were for a Christian prince.

Quote:

This custom was perhaps at its worst in Turkish times, when troops were often merely gangs of licensed bandits and pashas merely put there to soak up money before being superceded. The attitude of power without responsibility remains even today.

You are not being fair, Roger. What does "Turkish times" mean ? Ottomans ? Is it the times of Suleiman the Magnificent ? Ali Pasha's Egypt ? (Remember him ? He squashed the Wahabbis with no qualms whatsoever as menace to the economy) Would Vlad the Impaler or Ivan the Terrible or Duke of Alba be examples of "rightly guided" Christian rulers ?

Jiri

Roger Pearse · 07-23-2008, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

The article seems a fairly reasonable summary of his life, off-hand.

When the Arabs conquered Syria and Palestine, they did not evict the Byzantine officials. Rather they simply levied a tax on everything, which left them free to enjoy the proceeds and run an annual war against whoever they felt like. At the time their incursion was seen more as a large-scale raid, rather than a conquest (probably even by themselves), and it was only gradually that it became clear that it was permanent and that the Byzantines were not coming back.

That's silly patter, Roger. The conquest of the world, or bringing it under the rule of God's law, is in Islam's constitution...

I have no idea why you find my comments unwelcome, or insulting to your religion, or whatever other reason you have for responding like that.

Since most of your comments do not address mine, I have ignored them.

The papyri found in Egypt alone in the first centuries of Islamic rule demonstrate the continuation of the Greek administration for a century or two after the conquest, as might be expected. Why would the Arabs want to administer, if you think about it for a moment? All they wanted was money, after all. Of course over time the Greek administration broke down and was replaced by an Islamic system, but that was a gradual process.

The idea that Ottoman administration -- the Millet system in particular -- was not as I have described is curious. Go to google books and read the accounts of travellers.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-22-2008, 01:24 PM	#13
SkepticalThinker Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 28	This book will no doubt draw criticism, but I think it will be important in that it will draw attention to the lack of scholarly books on the subject of the origins of the Koran and Islam.

07-22-2008, 04:33 PM	#14
Malachi151 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 8,674	Interesting, and makes sense. The question now is if the facts support it. BTW, my understanding of the origins of Islam has always been that it grew out of what were considered heretical Christian sects that were driven out of the Catholic dominated Roman Empire as these sects, along with Jews, were driven East and mingled with the local "pagan" tribes. Out of this amalgam of "heretical" Christians, Jews, Pythagoreans, Neo-Platonist, and local tribesmen, sprang Islam.

07-22-2008, 04:45 PM	#15
jules? Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: mind the time rift, cardiff, wales Posts: 645	Just as christianity was Judaism for gentiles so it seems Islam was christianity for Arabs with a a few local gods/spirits/ and genies thrown in for good measure. Syrian Christianity fueled early Islam but whether the founder really existed or simply represented a title is an issue that will rage with no conclusion ever in sight. I was going to post a thread about the Arab Jesus and how his return is different along with his greasy hair, does it derive from the early Syrian church?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.