Doug Shaver

Is that true of all men? Or just those who disagree with you?

sotto voce

The intelligentsia of most regions of the world probably say that anything established as a centralized monotheistic state cult, by a warlord, was very unlikely to carry intellectual conviction. That which carried intellectual conviction needed no additional 'persuasion'.

Having said that, it's remarkable how certainty that there is no Christ correlates with certainty of who is a Christian. Even more remarkable is how this certainty is at its zenith when values are espoused that are inimical to and incompatible with those of the one alleged to be the Christ.

Duvduv

How could Mohammed be compared to Constantine when Mohammed may not have existed and in any event did not have a whole empire under his belt if he did exist? He lost major fights with his opponents and had few soldiers against much larger opponents. He did not inherit an empire, and the Islamic empire only developed in the decades after his death.

sotto voce

Mohammedans did. And they didn't wait to be asked in for a cup of tea.

Doug Shaver

I cannot find an answer to my question in any of that.

And, I suspect you intended as much.

You can easily prove my suspicion wrong, if you wish to.

mountainman

The similarity is that both warlords arrived at a period of supreme military control within their respective empires, and were instrumental, at least according to tradition, in the publication of the recognized prototype "Holy Writ" that serves as the basis for both centralised monotheistic state religious cults.


Constantine failed to have the Christian Holy Writ canonized in his lifetime, and it too, like the Islamic Holy Writ, was officially "canonized" decades after his death by those who had inherited (usually by the sword) the new centralised state power regime. The later generations of incumbents recognised a good business opportunity when they saw it.

Some people like to cite the date of 381 CE as the date the Roman Empire officially became "Christian". (Before that it was "Unofficially Chriatian") The same lag period applies to Islam, during which the "Holy Writ" was "Officially Canonized".

The Constantine Bible and the Muhammadan Quran are both technological products of empire-wide wars in late antiquity. There was an earlier precedent to be found in Ardashir.

If you read through the following summary from the Cambridge Ancient history you should be able to see parallels between Ardashir's centralised state monotheistic religion and those which followed suit.

sotto voce

Does the modern historian make such judgements?

One might reasonably suppose that sharia today and through thirteen centuries follows and followed the Qur'an (though an enormous amount of it is actually based upon other texts). There has never been any serious dispute within Islam upon this issue. The spread of Islam was characterised by violence. Without violence and its threat, Islam would have vanished into the realm of dusty antiquarians, as familiar to most of us of as the greatest Hittite deity cult. And yes, the Qur'an advocates violence for Muslims; at least, English translations indicate so (and making it technically an illegal publication, incidentally). So the historian can intelligently and with integrity suppose that there is an organic connexion of Qur'an with the claimed followers of Qur'an.

But to accept that the Bible formed the basis of the religion of the Roman Empire, and the Holy Roman Empire, is to accept the word of an institution that had opposed followers of the Bible for most of their existence. An institution that was well known for its ready absorption of religions, moreover. That it suddenly approved what it had consistently opposed is far too suspicious for the mind of the modern, experienced historian, who scrutinises claims, who expects that claims and realities are often at variance, and who scrutinises contemporaries for likely motives. A modern politician said of opponents, "They would say that, wouldn't they." The historian can hardly suppose that humanity has only recently grown subtle and devious.

Net2004

the biblical violence is PRESCRIPTIVE violence

here is proof

http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/05/the...lave-infidels/

the authour of the article isn't muslim. christians are not a fair people . you see they don't study the koran the same way they study the bible.

majority of americans believe the bible is literally the true word of god.

http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/05/maj...e-word-of-god/

OT NO LONGER APPLICABLE?

http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/05/the...ament-cop-out/

Pamela Spencer

The largest Muslim country in the world is Indonesia, comprising 17,508 islands (Population 240 million, 87% Muslim). Historically, the primary mode of Islamic proselytization/facilitation was via Sufi (mystic) merchants.

"History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated."

[De Lacy O'Leary, ISLAM AT THE CROSSROADS, London, 1923, p. 8.]

sotto voce

:snooze: