sotto voce

So they say. Perhaps every adult Muslim believes that Jesus was crucified, and their more perceptive children, too. People tell lies. Particularly when it comes to money and sex, which topics were not unusual in the gospels. They tell lies in particular about Jesus' death. Catholics have one version, Eastern Orthodox another, Protestants a third, and they are all going from the same book. At least two of these sets must be liars, because they are not stupid. Then there is Islam (that wrote its own book, with just one brief, ambiguous comment about Jesus' crucifixion— the only significant one it holds!). A good detective looks for 'MMO', motive, means, opportunity. So we already have motive, for all of them.

Now was there opportunity, if Jesus did die and was resurrected, to say that he did not die, when it was clear that he had died? No. But, in the circumstances, given the natural urge for humanity to preserve its autonomy with respect of its money and sexual practices, one might expect that idea to gain currency, say, six hundred years after the event, or alleged event, when all possible eye-witnesses were well faded from memory. So we can tick that box. Bang on cue, Muhammad.

Means? Of course. Anyone who can write, can write anything.

MMO, all boxes ticked. But, while this does not prove that Jesus did die, it does prove that Muhammad could easily have been lying, just making it up. So, just as anyone who asserts that apostolic succession exists, anyone who asserts that Muhammad was not lying must be either brainwashed or a liar. Because in both cases they just do not know.

But there is more. Muslims say that the idea of Allah permitting his prophet to die is offensive. So why did Allah, who is allegedly all wise, allegedly merciful, allow everyone to think that he had done precisely that for six hundred years before telling just one man, in camera, who then had to use an army to try to get his correction across, and, unsurprisingly, with no real success? A genuine deity would never have allowed his prophet to be thought to have been killed if this diminished his own authority. Either Allah is incompetent, or double-minded. And does not mind one tiny bit killing thousand and thousands of people to make up for his own blunder.

Though we all know the truth, really, as we do with Joseph Smith. No genuine deity could come up with the 'secluded angel' story.

Duvduv

I am not sure I understand what you mean. However, it would seem that the entire gnostic-imamist religion emerged BEFORE there was even contact with the Muhammadan Arabs, and that the suffering of Hussein was merely an updated version of the suffering of a particular Imam on behalf of his people.

This would not have been an ironic contradiction if that early imamist sect did not know of the Mohammedan belief that Jesus was not crucified. On the contrary, it is entirely possible that the original Imamist religion EMERGED from a gnostic or similar Christian belief that the HJ figure was a divinely appointed "Imam" duly descended genealogically from David and Abraham.

Given the likely plethora of gnostic and syncretist movements between Greece and Persia, it is not hard to imagine that this belief was adapted to Ali. Or perhaps Ali was an original Arab Imam and he was integrated with the Mohammedans. After all, Mohammed (or Mahmud) is mentioned without context only 4 or 5 times in the entire Quran, and ALI AND HUSSEIN ARE NEVER MENTIONED.

And the events of Qarbala story and Hussein are not originally tied in with Mohammed and the Quran either.

sotto voce

Alert. The above post is not a reply to mine.

Duvduv

Yes, it was a reply to you insofar as I said I didn't undertand what you mean, and then I proceeded to move on to discuss my own thoughts further. Your reply remains unclear to me.

sotto voce

The post is not referenced to any other. It is not a reply to mine.

Duvduv

I responded under your posting Sotto Voce because I didn't want to clutter the reply making it harder to read.

Duvduv

It would be great if we could get back to a substantive discussion of the subject becing discussed which I find rarely addressed.

Duvduv

Of course the origins of Shiism/Imamism in the world of the Arabs is in a fog. Both supporters and opponents of Shiism focus mainly on the differences of practice and belief, and the wars that killed Ali and then Hussein. However they do not get at the crux at how it emerged.

Some oppoinents give credence to the influence of someone named Abdullah ibn Saba, while others content this person never existed. At least in that universe they are not so wedded to the existence of Abdullah as other historians are wedded to the heresiologist versions about Marcion.......

He could be considered the Marcion in the world of "Islam." Here's an article about him:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_ibn_Saba