Didymus

Well, I'm sure you're the first to call it "silly." You seem to have little regard for precision in the use of language. This is not a good omen.

Didymus

youngalexander

Neither. Results from a little light reading undertaken following 9/11.

Yet the history of religious movements is never quite that straightforward.
The Quest for the Historical Muhammad (tQotHM) presents a comprehensive review of Islamic historical scholarship. The justification for my 'outburst', as the Mods would have it, is thoroughly documented in it's pages.

In particular, ch2; Origins of Islam: A Critical Look at the Sources, Ibn Rawandi. Also the chapters on the work of Wansbrough, eg. pg 516

there is no Muslim literature which can be dated, in the form in which it is available to us, earlier than about 800 C.E. (end of the second century of the Islamic era)....
Islam is a complex phenomenon the development of which must have taken many generations

I appreciate that the views I expressed would hardly be popular amongst Muslims, and indeed, they may not even be true. However, they are not unreasonable. In fact there is considerable scholarship to back them up.

Burton comments upon al-Tabari's History (pg 90 tQotHM).

None will fail to be struck by the slimness of a volume purporting to cover more than half a century in the life of one of History's giants. pg 90

however far back in the Muslim tradition one now attempts to reach, one simply cannot recover a scrap of information of real use in constructing the human history of Muhammad, beyond the bare fact that he once existed - although even that has now been questioned.(pg 91)

Of course Burton is not a radical. Perhaps we should try Crone & Hinds

this [as you present above] picture of early Islamic history was invented by the ulama (scholarly elite) two or three centuries later, to support their own position and power by claiming that things had always been that way.(pg 97)

Islam began as a form of Judaism. The 'conquered' not aware of a 'book' or 'Prophet'. Little or no regard for the 'Prophet' in early Islam. Mecca having nothing to do with the early 'history' of the religion. Events having taken place far to the north. :devil1:

I could go on, but I fear that you are already in deep, deep denial.

Yup, pretty much.
Unless of course, you actually have some historical sources to back their claims. Crone & Hinds again

It is a striking fact that such documentary evidence as survives from the Sufyanid period (661-684) makes no mention of the messenger of God at all.

As skepticism demands, the question is, where is the evidence.

youngalexander

Yes, referring to OECD former Christian societies - Europe, N America and Australasia. S America will also secularise as they become more prosperous.

Ummm! Special case. Secularisation correlates with prosperity and equality of wealth distribution. Plus USA historical formation retards secular development.

True, I was essentually contrasting with Islam which patently does not seperate church and state, and perhaps cannot!

Didn't give it a thort. I agree.

Stuff the mullahs.

ynquirer

Where is the evidence?

youngalexander

In The Quest for the Historical Muhammad previously quoted and the many scholarly references which it contains. If you cannot be bothered with that, then read the reviews at Amazon.

I realise that it is distressing to have your illusions shattered, but this forum concerns Criticism & History. Read the book. Islam is a late literary creation of second & third (Islamic) century scholars.

Yes there were tribal conquests. Maybe there was the cast of characters that Muslims fondly suppose, altho their role is highly romanticised at best and likely largely myth. As for the Prophet? Perhaps a remembrance of a bandit chief, perhaps not.

I didn't make it up matey. Truth is stranger (and more interesting) than fiction.:angel:

orangebaw

What is your point exactly? A cheap jab at me? What's up?

Joan of Bark

Oh, yeah, we know it deep within our hearts, which is why we go around denouncing it -- so we can all lose our immortal souls. Talk about nihilistic!

jackrabbit

Maybe because moe isn't in our face the way jeebus is. Maybe because moe isn't currently trying to take over the country.

And yes, I know moe is in the face of people in other countries and has already taken over other countries, but he isn't as much a danger to us as jeebus is. At the current time, anyway. One battle at a time.

If the followers of jeebus would fucking leave us alone, we wouldn't insult jeebus or even mention jeebus. I would give anything to never hear of jeebus again. Can you arrange it? You know, initiate an immediate halt of all evangelism, assaults on the constitution, attempts to legislate morality, and fucking with science education?

ynquirer

If I ask for concrete evidence you oughtn’t to make such a point of authority as redirecting me toward scholarly references in a book, ought you? Truth to be told, I expected you to educate me on documents, carved stones, archaeological remains, and the like. It now seems clear to me that you simply cannot provide such type of evidence.

That not withstanding, I have visited the reviews at amazon.com you mention. As expected, they are very dissimilar in quality and interest. Nevertheless, the impression one gets there is that the book you rate that high is a collection of essays analysing contradiction in the sources, then using the subsequent void to propose bizarre hypothesis like the origin of Islam as a form of Judaism and possibly others, for which there is no evidence at all.

The main argument against extant sources on Muhammad and the Koran is that they are Muslim alone, and the critics take for granted that the circumstance warrants dismissing them as fake. Well, we know of Julius Caesar only through Roman sources; by the same token, we might question his historicity as well. Furthermore, Muslim sources on Muhammad are deprived of any supernatural or miraculous bias; in reference to this, they are much like Roman sources on Caesar. However, you question Muhammad, not Caesar. Why?

Most of the reviewers of the book at amazon.com are – as the book itself seems to be – intent on making counter-history. Amos Funkenstein defined counter-history as follows:

[Counter-history's] function is polemical. [Its] method consists of the systematic exploitation of the adversary's most trusted sources against their grain. [Its] aim is the distortion of the adversary's self-image, of his identity, through the deconstruction of his memory.

If you carefully consider who the reviewers at amazon.com – and arguably the contributors to your book – are, you will find a positive interest in making counter-history against the Muslims. And you don’t make counter-history on Caesar by the simple reason that hardly anyone is interested in distorting the ancient Romans’ self-image and identity through deconstruction of their memory, as they all are since long dead.

But the significance of the effort of counter-historians is that, according to your standard, no historical narrative would hold before the American Declaration of Independence. History does not work like that.

In any event, I find it the utmost acknowledgeable your meritorious contribution to a psychological War against Terror. My congratulations.