 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Islam a Syrian Christian sect, Mohammed a fiction?
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
Whether Jesus Christ really existed is still doubted by some. But now it is Mohammed's turn... It apparently started, or at least became visible to the public, with Christoph Luxenberg's research (Chiesa interview) concerning the origin of the Quran:
quote:
Q. - You have discovered that Sura 97 of the Koran mentions the Nativity. And in your translation of the famous Sura of Mary, her "birthgiving" is "made legitimate by the Lord." Moreover, the text contains the invitation to come to the sacred liturgy, to the Mass. Would the Koran, then, be nothing other than an Arabic version of the Christian Bible?
A. - "In its origin, the Koran is a Syro-Aramaic liturgical book, with hymns and extracts from Scriptures which might have been used in sacred Christian services. In the second place, one may see in the Koran the beginning of a preaching directed toward transmitting the belief in the Sacred Scriptures to the pagans of Mecca, in the Arabic language. Its socio-political sections, which are not especially related to the original Koran, were added later in Medina. At its beginning, the Koran was not conceived as the foundation of a new religion. It presupposes belief in the Scriptures, and thus functioned merely as an inroad into Arabic society."
So this would make the origin of Islam a missionary campaign of Syrian Christianity. As stated in Leithart's article in First Things, Sura 44:58 actually says “we have translated [the Koran] into your language so that they may allow themselves to be reminded.” As that article also explains, there may now be doubt about the very existence of Mohammed:
quote:
The books editor, Karl-Heinz Ohlig, reminds readers that most of the biographical information we have about Mohammed doesnt come from the Quran but from texts written fully two centuries after Mohammeds death. Its not until the ninth century that Muslim writers claim that the Quran contains the revelations given to Mohammed. The year 622-which Muslims mark as the year Mohammed and his followers made the Hijira, a fateful journey from Mecca to Medina-was not originally connected with Mohammed at all. Before there is any record of Muslims dating time from the Hijra, Arabic Christians dated the beginning of the Arabic era to 622, when they gained independence from Persias Sassanian empire. ...
Luxenberg points out that Mohammed, usually understood as a proper name, means “exalted be” or “praised be,” and also notes that Syriac Christians, who were skeptical of the Nicene doctrine of Jesus divine sonship, preferred Isaiahs title “Servant” for Jesus. He contends that the inscription should read: “There is no god but God alone . . . Praised be the servant of God and his messenger.” This makes better sense of the sequel, which explicitly identifies “Messiah Jesus, son of Mary” as “the messenger of God and his Word.” An inscription about Jesus was later reinterpreted as a confession of a different faith entirely.
When the Quran is placed in the context of Syrian Christianity and the debates over Arian, Nestorian, and Monophysite Christology that wracked eastern Christianity in these centuries, its debt to Christianity becomes plausible. The Quran includes passages, for example, that reflect Syrian attacks on Monophysite Christology.
Luxenberg (a pseudonym) is not alone, there seems to be a German academic cottage industry now engaged in "debunking" the accepted history of Islam and Mohammed. So, is Islam really nothing but the most successful of all Christian heresies? Is the 200 year time gap between the supposed life of Mohammed and the written accounts thereof an indication of a Christian sect re-inventing itself as a prophetic religion? Or is this all, well, utter and total bollocks?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I am going to guess bollocks - for one thing there are credible family trees traced back to the prophet. If Mohammed were actually Christ we also have a rather difficult to explain time lapse of a number of centuries. There are also some non-islamic corrobarative sources for Mohammed.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
It is very wise of the person behind "Christophe Luxenberg" to use a pseudonym - the only way she or he could get any less popular among hardline Islamists would have been if the book was illustrated.
I think that questioning the existence of Mohammed needs to belong in the same category as questioning the existence of Jesus or the historical fact of the Holocaust - i.e. not territory for any serious scholars to go near. There are plenty of sources for his existence other than the Koran - for example the Achtiname of Muhammed which established the protection of Saint Catherine's Monastery.
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
My understanding of things was that Mohammed was heavily influenced (especially during his earlier writings) by Christians and Jews living on the Arabic Peninsula. It was only after they realized that he was writing a new 'Holy Book' that they began to have conflict with him and some of the more anti-Christian/Judaism sentiments began to creep into his writings.
It would explain some of the more Christian/Jewish sentiments scattered throughout the Koran.
Personally, I have little doubt that Mohammed existed. I also recall that Islam was considered a part of Christianity for many years until it established itself as a fully separate religion.
--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
It's fairly uncontroversial to categorise Islam as the most successful Christian heresy - on the same basis as you can categorise Christianity as the most successful Jewish heresy. In both cases the new religion starts from the core beliefs of its predecessor, takes a particular element and focuses on it in a way that makes the protagonists of the old religion argue that it's gone wrong. Indeed in several respects - the restoration of a dietary code and the denial of the divinity of Jesus - Islam is closer to Judaism than Christianity. They certainly share an expectation of a final judgement - though offering rather different understandings of on what basis the judgement will be. Such a categorisation is useful in contrasting these religions with those of the East or elsewhere...
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Indeed in several respects - the restoration of a dietary code and the denial of the divinity of Jesus - Islam is closer to Judaism than Christianity.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif) Daaaammmn, I actually agree with Ender's Shadow on something!
--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
It's fairly uncontroversial to categorise Islam as the most successful Christian heresy - on the same basis as you can categorise Christianity as the most successful Jewish heresy. In both cases the new religion starts from the core beliefs of its predecessor, takes a particular element and focuses on it in a way that makes the protagonists of the old religion argue that it's gone wrong. Indeed in several respects - the restoration of a dietary code and the denial of the divinity of Jesus - Islam is closer to Judaism than Christianity. They certainly share an expectation of a final judgement - though offering rather different understandings of on what basis the judgement will be. Such a categorisation is useful in contrasting these religions with those of the East or elsewhere...
There are also minor Islamic denominations that have a more Hebraic dietary code and prohibit shellfish as well as pork, although not sure if they also prohibit rabbit and other forbidden food.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
One also has to remark on the similarities between Ramazan and lent, especially in the EO tradition.
Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
Just up front, I am personally skeptic of this precisely because of all the shoddy scholarship that we have seen in the case of Christ and early Christianity. However, there are also aspects to this that ring true. A much stronger connection of the Qur'an to Syrian-Christian liturgical texts would make better sense of Christian influences that are undoubtedly there. And while one does not have to go as far as doubting the very existence of Mohammed, it is interesting to consider that this didn't used to be a proper name. It may well have derived from some exalted title. Etc.
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
If Mohammed were actually Christ we also have a rather difficult to explain time lapse of a number of centuries.
Nobody has claimed that though. The claim is merely that a description of Christ was later turned into a proper name for a fictitious person.
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
There are plenty of sources for his existence other than the Koran - for example the Achtiname of Muhammed which established the protection of Saint Catherine's Monastery.
Interesting, I didn't know about that. I gather from Wikipedia however that it is suspect of (ancient) forgery due to the absence of an original and the closeness to an 878 text. The claim of these researchers is that there are in fact not plenty of resources about Mohammed prior to the 9th century. And if so, then that indeed would be somewhat odd. (And yes, a lot more odd than the documentary gap in the case of Jesus.)
quote:
Originally posted by the Ender's Shadow:
It's fairly uncontroversial to categorise Islam as the most successful Christian heresy - on the same basis as you can categorise Christianity as the most successful Jewish heresy.
I'm nor so sure that this is "uncontroversial" outside of certain Christian circles. I would say that it is even false to call Christianity a Jewish heresy, and there the connection is much, much clearer.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
It would seem a little strange though to have Jesus figured in the Koran as the prophet who returns at the end of time. If there has been a conflation of Mohammed and Jesus, then surely Mohammed would be the one to return rather than Jesus? Or am I missing your point?
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
There are plenty of sources for his existence other than the Koran - for example the Achtiname of Muhammed which established the protection of Saint Catherine's Monastery.
Interesting, I didn't know about that. I gather from Wikipedia however that it is suspect of (ancient) forgery due to the absence of an original and the closeness to an 878 text. The claim of these researchers is that there are in fact not plenty of resources about Mohammed prior to the 9th century. And if so, then that indeed would be somewhat odd. (And yes, a lot more odd than the documentary gap in the case of Jesus.)
If you read the Wiki article, you will see that it is not 'suspected' that it's a forgery, it's a known fact that it was replaced after the Ottoman troops nicked the original.
What is not up for grabs there is the history of the monastery being protected after Mohammed was given refuge there.
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
It would seem a little strange though to have Jesus figured in the Koran as the prophet who returns at the end of time. If there has been a conflation of Mohammed and Jesus, then surely Mohammed would be the one to return rather than Jesus? Or am I missing your point?
Yes, you are. Or more properly speaking, you are probably missing the point of these researchers, since I'm not sure to what extent I should buy any of this, and I have not read their arguments but merely online reports about them.
It's more like this, as I understand it: imagine you have inherited a partly translated and partly understood liturgical book that is supposed to aid you in a faith that you sort of have picked up from some missionaries passing through. In it you find lots of reference to "Vater, Son and Heiliger Spirit" (intentional mix with of English with German for "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" here) and you sort of remember that this was very important. But you don't quite get what that term is supposed to mean, it being half-foreign to your ears, and lacking continuous guidance. And perhaps there are people who for reasons of their own wish to exploit this confusion. At any rate, two hundred years later your people have convinced themselves that there was a prophet called Fathersonandspirit, in whose name all of this liturgy is being celebrated and who originally dictated the version of the book which is in use now (and which is actually a heavily modified version of the original liturgical book). Stories about someone called Jesus Christ remain part of all this, as they were maintained as part of the text. But any connection to the "Son" in Fathersonandspirit is long lost.
That's at least the kind of idea that I get from what I've read about this (which is very limited).
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
What is not up for grabs there is the history of the monastery being protected after Mohammed was given refuge there.
I think it should be up for grabs, or at least discussion. I found no record of any historical source for this claim in the wiki pages on the monastery or the achtiname, just references to 'there is a tradition of', which is so vague as to be useless for historical study.
Do you have any sources for this certainty you have?
[ 11. December 2012, 12:05: Message edited by: Hawk ]
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
<x-post with Hawk>
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
If you read the Wiki article, you will see that it is not 'suspected' that it's a forgery, it's a known fact that it was replaced after the Ottoman troops nicked the original.
Wikipedia does not sell that as a "known fact" at all, it calls it a "traditional explanation" and offers another one.
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
What is not up for grabs there is the history of the monastery being protected after Mohammed was given refuge there.
Or so you claim. What is clearly not up for grabs is that this monastery was protected under Ottoman rule. What is not up for grabs is that it survived that long. Given however that the contention here is that Mohammed didn't even exist, obviously stories that the monastery gave refuge to Mohammed are precisely to be argued for. And 16th century documents, which claim that Mohammed personally granted protection to that monastery in the 7th century, simply do not as such cut it in that regard. Not only could they have been made up, there is rather obvious motivation indeed to make them up. For a Christian monastery operating in Muslim lands, such a document would be incredibly convenient to have.
Again, I'm not at all convinced that Mohammed didn't exist and I'm quite happy to believe that he once was hosted in that monastery. It also seems plausible enough that this monastery had enjoyed a special status even prior to the Ottomans. But your assertion that this was due to Mohammed having been there is just an assertion so far.
[ 11. December 2012, 12:08: Message edited by: IngoB ]
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
It would seem a little strange though to have Jesus figured in the Koran as the prophet who returns at the end of time. If there has been a conflation of Mohammed and Jesus, then surely Mohammed would be the one to return rather than Jesus?
Lots of Muslim teachings have Jesus as the Messiah who is to return at the end of the world. That's not at all esoteric.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
Wouldn't it make more sense to envisage Muhammad as an early version of Joseph Smith? He was someone who actually existed, took an existing religion and modified it? The (completely unintentional) parallels between Mormomism and Islam seem striking to me. Both emerged in societies of religious pluralism and resulting turmoil and provided a path with clear rules, practices and structures.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
LucyP
Shipmate
# 10476
|
Posted
I was reading William Dalrymple's "From the Holy Mountain" this week, which introduced me to St John of Damascus (lived approx 645-749). John's father was said to have been an administrator for a Muslim caliph.
The following is from John's critique of Islam:
quote:
From that time to the present a false prophet named Mohammed has appeared in their midst. This man, after having chanced upon the Old and New Testaments and likewise, it seems, having conversed with an Arian monk, [101] devised his own heresy. Then, having insinuated himself into the good graces of the people by a show of seeming piety, he gave out that a certain book had been sent down to him from heaven. He had set down some ridiculous compositions in this book of his and he gave it to them as an object of veneration.
(Source)
He then goes on to criticise specific suras (which I think match up to the present day Qur'an -eg the Heifer).
That, to me, suggests that Mohummad's writings were available well before the 9th century date given in the OP.
Posts: 235 | From: my sanctuary | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LucyP:
That, to me, suggests that Mohummad's writings were available well before the 9th century date given in the OP.
I haven't even read the relevant books, but I doubt that the people claiming that the figure of Muhammed is at least in considerable part historical fiction are unaware of these writings. I found this online from a comment on a related book:
quote:
Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi in The American Spectator, May 25, 2012:
To begin with, contemporary non-Muslim sources of the 7th century do not corroborate the canonical story. For example, the Doctrina Jacobi (a document dating to 634-40 CE and probably written by a Christian living in Palestine; p. 20), an account of the Arab conquest of Jerusalem by Sophronius -- the patriarch who is said to have surrendered the city in 637 -- and a letter written in 647 by the patriarch of Seleucia make no reference to the Arab conquerors as Muslims, or show any awareness of a religion called Islam. ...
Only by around 730 CE, nearly one hundred years after Muhammad's death in 632 CE according to the canonical story, do we see an account by John of Damascus make detailed reference to parts of the Qur'an, but even then he does not name the Qur'an or allude to the existence of a complete holy book for those he calls "Hagarians," "Ishmaelites" or "Saracens" (but not Muslims).
Instead, we have reference to Qur'anic chapter titles like "The Women" (this is the fourth Sura of the Qur'an today), implying that he was drawing on fragments of text that were later incorporated into the Qur'an.
Anyway, have a read of that review. It's the most complete account of the argument that I've seen online so far.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
