New Book: The Hidden Origins of Islam

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Michael, Jul 7, 2010.

  1. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    Actually Michael-

    the point was that it doesn't matter if Quran has any new morals... so discussing if it does or doesn't is meaningless..

    Keep posting your 'fallacy' list... If you ever posted any good questions no one would be dissing you and your questions- and then you wouldn't have to use your list of fallacies to post.

    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Actually 786,

    If it doesn't matter, then simply agree that the Qur'an hasn't offered anything novel in regards to moral or ethical conduct - that the Qur'an is no more or no less better at proffering moral guidance than any other belief.

    Pretty simple.

    As for it being pointless - that of course is up to each individual to decide for themselves. If you're not interested stay out of the discussion. It's that simple.

    As it stands, there is no evidence to suggest the Qur'an is in any way novel or superior with regards to morality.
    Michael
     
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2010
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,834
    You're sure? Blowing hot air our your ass isn't quite the same thing as being sure.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,834
    And, you know this how?
     
  8. Ja'far at-Tahir Grand Ayatollah of SciForums Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    612
    Would it not be implied by the definition of God-Deity?
     
  9. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,834
    No, it wouldn't be implied, it would be asserted. The definition of God-Deity is based entirely on assertions as there are no Gods-Deities in which to observe.
     
  10. Big Chiller Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    Good question but it's well known from the Quran that angels cannot disobey and that very clearly implies that God created the ability to disobey in people.
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2010
  11. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,834
    Taqiyaa in action. Lying for Allah.
     
  12. Shadow1 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,160
    .

    haha, he really don't know anything about quran or islam, yes what you said is true, angels, don't have a freewill, while humans, and djins, do.
    infact, quran answers all my questions, for example, aliens, do exist, other living planets, do exist, also those two facts, are scientificly logic, and etc...
    well, i don't care what he thinks, hehehehe. mochkoltou hadhika, lol, otrokh yhatri(yahdhi) wa7dou, hehehehe ^^"
     
  13. Shadow1 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,160
    .

    what is that?
     
  14. Ja'far at-Tahir Grand Ayatollah of SciForums Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    612
    I am willing to bet you don't know jack shit about the practice of taqiyya.
     
  15. Ja'far at-Tahir Grand Ayatollah of SciForums Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    612
    I have got to say, this is hilarious.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    You have the book, I am asking you to provide evidence for the claims, you can use the book, that you own, to post the sources the authors cite, the proof that the author cite and so on. As it stands, the only source we have is this book and the claims being said do not, in any way, meet with presently established history. I am asking for dates, books, authors, cite your fucking sources. You can't just sit here and pontificate and just assume you're right. I mean this is absurd, how old are you? 13? I mean, you have to be able to prove your own points that you are making, I can't do that for you. I mean, why the hell do I have to go out and look for proof of what you are saying. If you truly (and it seems you're quite devout in your belief in this book) believe what you are saying and feel so god damn bold, prove it.

    I even read the Qantara interview and even in there the author, Mr. Ohlig didn't even really provide any other evidence and so forth that you have. Infact after reading the interview it has become apparent that all of your arguments and posts in this thread have been copy and paste. Have you researched anything past this book? It's easy for you guys to just omit evidences that refute your claims and it's not surprising Westerners would just eat this up without an skepticism because you're not aware of the evidence.

    Really?

    click here
    click here

    No coins minted during that time period under a Muslim caliph and one that illustrates the prophethood of Muhammad (pbuh) with an opposing religious icon on the back?

    click here

    The fire altar is a clear Zoroastrian icon. Fire-altars play in an important role in the Zoroastrian faith and they were also refered to by Muslim authors as "fire-worshippers," so the reference is obvious.

    What about this?

    click here

    click here

    Dome of the Rock?

    click here

    click here

    click here

    What about this?

    click here

    click here

    click here

    click here

    click here

    click here

    What real archaeologists are you talking about? So whom exactly are you talking about? I want names because you're idea of history is not matching up to reality and you have been bewitched by a book it appears, hook, line and sinker, as you would say.

    You're the one arguing the assertions of the book therefore it is up to you to provide the evidence in the book and post it on this forum. You're the one asserting these points as if they were Gospel straight from the mouths of Ohlig and Puin. It's your argument, so prove it.

    Provide your sources, lol, but really, it's pointless. Do you even understand what Islam is? I mean, I have already stated that we believe in the prophethood of Musa (as) and Isa (as) so of course those "myths," would be included in al-Qur'an. You're stupidity is truly astounding.
     
  16. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Ja'far,

    You CAN just post ONE link to the Islamic Awareness website. Everyone here knows the website and can navigate it. I asked about the gold coins you posted because I was genuinely interested in their history. Do you have a link such as the one I provided That is, a professional Journal as I provided to you? If so, then when I have time, I'd more than enjoy reading about the coins.

    As I said, I am OPEN to the idea that the Mohammad protagonist is based on a person - IMO most likely a Christian Patriarch. Simply provide some contemporary evidence such a person existed. Do you have such evidence Ja'far? The coin you posted are not contemporary with the Mohammad character. I asked for contemporary evidence. Do you have any?

    How would YOU explain the word Mohammad first appearing on a coin as a Title for Jesus?


    We have lots of coins with Athena, Zeus, Hercules, Jesus, all sorts of people on them. So, do you think THEY existed as well? I'm just curious. Do you? I am OPEN to the idea that a God, a Goddess, Gods, Goddesses or even Alien Overlords exist. Simply provide some good evidence. Do you have some good evidence of any of these? Writing a Space Opera isn't Good Evidence of the existence of Xenu - no matter how much you jump up and down, call people stupid for not believing in Xenu and claim Ron Hubbard was the Last Prophet. I only mention this in that the authors are trying to logically explain how the religion Islam and it's protagonist came to be. Is that what YOU are trying to do here Ja'far? If not maybe this isn't the thread topic for you. I'm sure there's one somewhere in Sciforms Cesspool you may enjoy?
    That's not the way scholarship works Ja'far. I have cited the book. That's all I need to do. If I cite each source in the book - what next? Ja'far asks for all of their sources as well. So I cite a few thousand more citations - each of these have a few thousand more citations to be cited ....and so on it goes.

    One book is linked to hundreds of thousands of works of literature - perhaps millions if you connected each to ever work.

    THAT'S why there's things called BOOKS - which is cited. You get the book, you open it, you read it. Welcome to scholarship.

    I am perfectly find with the authors hypothesises being overturned - today even. Given how well it lines up with other myths, and their mythical protagonist counterparts, I think it's very interesting and logical.

    How else can anyone logically explain the Qur'an containing such a vast number of Biblical myths?
    :shrug:



    Think about this logically Ja'far, HOW else do you explain the Qur'an containing 80% Biblical stories? Any logical ideas Ja'far? It's reasonable to be skeptical - I support skepticism 100%. I think the authors offer a very reasonable explanation for the Mohammad protagonist and how the Qur'an came to be composed of 80% Biblical stories. The only other rational explanation, I can think of, is if we assume you are correct and the author Mohammad existed, would be if this Mohammad person pretended to hear an invisible angel and then regaled his followers with a mishmash of Biblical stories as best as he could remember hearing them. Then one wonders, why was this Mohammad person so smitten with Biblical mythology? Seems like the logical answer is he was a Christian. Why else tell his followers Bible tales? Of course this is plausible. But, as it stands, it seems more reasonable that other people collected common in-house Biblical literature and compiled it all at a later date -adding in bits here and there as they saw fit until it met the needs of whomever was the ruling elite at the time - this is a common story that has occurred since myth-making began. It's the reason YOUR QUR'AN has a version of the Epic of Gilgamesh in it. That's simply a fact of life - deal with it.


    Did you miss something? Excerpts means small sections copied word for word from something cited (as I did).
    Again, how else can anyone logically explain the Qur'an containing such a vast number of Biblical myths? :shrug:


    Well?
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2010
  17. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
  18. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Yes I agree.

    I was referring to the Star and Crescent that is clearly evident on the Sassanid Persia King Khostau II coin. See, I assumed the Star and Crescent was "Islamic" because it appears above Mosques. I hadn't known that it was actually a Persian Zoroastrian symbol that pre-dates Islam. More evidence that "Islam" evolved and incorporated symbolism from earlier faiths in and around that area. Possibly from the Zoroastrian-Christian faiths of the time. I mean, Christianity is clearly modeled on Persian Mythraism - there was a LOT of exchange in ideas as we can find Persian Mthranic remains as far away as ENGLAND.

    Unless you have another LOGICAL explanation for a Zoroastrian Star and Crescent to be the highest symbol on Mosques?


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2010
  19. Ja'far at-Tahir Grand Ayatollah of SciForums Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    612
    No, you're not, as is evidence by this.

    Hilarious, I see you borrow all of your material, I'm sure Dawkins would be proud. Not only that, it's quite obvious you're just another dumbass Atheist prick that's pretentious and has an an earned sense of superiority. It wouldn't be so bad if you're arguments where atleast coherent, well backed and so forth, but they are not. You're "theories," (if they can even be called as such) are nothing more than conspiracy theories based upon you're own intolerance of Islam and Muslims. As evident in all your posts regarding Muslims and Islam.

    Admit it, you're not open to the idea of Muhammad (saw) existing as a person at all. You deny all of the early history of Islam and reject an evidence I give regardless of it's acceptance within Western academia. Read the sources. The evidence I am providing is accepted by academic journals and so forth, you can't keep just denying the evidence I am providing if you truly are concerned about History and the study thereof. It exists. What more do I have to post in order to get it through your thick Neanderthal-like skull? I have posted a family tree, I can post images of the grave of Muhammad, I have posted coins, papyri, numerous archaeological evidence for Muhammad (saw) and the early ummah. I mean, come the fuck on. It's hilarious how you're asking for "contemporary evidence," accepted by academic journals such as JSTOR, while at the same time, bitching for me posting individual links, saying "I can navigate the site damnt!" did you miss the references at the bottom of each link? It cites academic journals.

    Also, the fact that you're lumping Muhammad (saw) and Xenu and Scientology is further proof, that you're biased and you're not willing in any real sense to accept that Muhammad (saw) was indeed a real person. I mean, come on, it doesn't even have anything to do with whether or not you accept the spiritual assertions of Muhammad (saw) or Islam. Not only that, you continue to refer to him as a "probable Christian patriarch," what evidence do you even have for this? Hmm? You keep ranting "I'm right, oh, silly Ja'far, can't you see," but yet, I see nothing. Just bitching about having to back up your arguments. Booohoooo.

    Honestly, you truly are the most thick headed person I think I have ever had the unfortunate to talk to. I assume you're talking about the drachm of 'Abd al-Malik ibn 'Abd Allah (5th caliph of the Umayyad dynasty 685-705 C.E.), correct? Perhaps you missed the references at the bottom of the page.

    1. J. Walker, A Catalogue Of The Muhammadan Coins In The British Museum, 1941, Volume I - Arab-Sassanian Coins, British Museum: London, p. 97.

    2. H. Gaube, Arabosasanidische Numismatik, 1973, Handbücher Der Mittelasiatischen Numismatik - Volume 2, Klinkhardt & Biermann: Braunschweig, p. 62.

    3. J. Johns, "Archaeology And The History Of Early Islam: The First Seventy Years", Journal Of The Economic And Social History Of The Orient, 2003, Volume 46, No. 4, pp. 426-427.

    What more proof do I honestly have to offer in order for you to "accept," this? I mean seriously, this is ridiculous. The tombstone of 'Abassa Bint Juraij?

    1. H. M. El-Hawary, "The Second Oldest Islamic Monument Known Dated AH 71 (AD 691) From The Time Of The Omayyad Calif ‘Abd el-Malik Ibn Marwan", Journal Of The Royal Asiatic Society, 1932, p. 289.

    2. A. Grohmann, Arabische Paläographie II: Das Schriftwesen. Die Lapidarschrift, 1971, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften Philosophisch - Historische Klasse: Denkschriften 94/2. Hermann Böhlaus Nachf.: Wein, p. 72, Plate 10:2.

    I have already explained my theory about the coins meaning. Do I have to repeat myself? Are you really this dumb? You're reading you're own interpretation on to this coin based upon a hypothesis, in one book, that at best would be considered highly controversial. Even you would have to admit the claims of this book are highly controversial. Are you a Numismatist? Didn't think so, I mean, seriously, you can not tell me that you have researched this to the point were you could come to a solid conclusion that Muhammad was ever used a Christological title refering to Jesus Christ. If I am wrong and you have, then you should have no problem in explaining your assertions and providing proof and providing proof that match up to your own standards.

    It's not a "logical explanation for the origins of Islam and it's protagonist," at all. It's a revisionist interpretation and hypothesis of Islamic history and is at best highly controversial. There already exist, "logical explanations," of Islamic history that accept the evidences for Muhammad's (saw) existance and the existance of the early ummah. Even by people whom are anti-Islamic.

    If you honestly think this then you're more naive than the religious folk that you so openly mock which is ironic.

    Not only that, most if not all of your arguments are totally incoherent and based largely upon assumptions that are not rooted in objective fact. I am not asking you to post a continous chain of references, what I am asking for is proof of what you're claiming using the sources and evidences in the book itself. If you can't post even this, then how can I logically accept this as even being true at all? I can't and logically no one else can either. Trying to bitch about scholarship and using other such ploys doesn't give you more legitmacy either. In my opinion, if you can't prove you're arguments then just stop and admit it because it seems to me that your floundering about. Can you not accept the possibility that this book is wrong? Can you not accept the fact that this books hypothesis and claims are highly controversial? You're acting as if the whole of academia is in total agreement with this book, when it's not. Sorry.
     
  20. Ja'far at-Tahir Grand Ayatollah of SciForums Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    612
  21. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Firstly, I agree, it's not accepted as fact and it is highly controversial. It's a hypothesis and as I said the research is still all new. We'll see where we are in 1, 5, 10 years time. I expect we'll go in the same way as Judaism and Christianity. I'd say most serious archeologists accept Mosses and Jesus are simply myth. No the Jews didn't build the Pyramids and it's highly unlikely that Jesus ever existed (as a person) either. :shrug:

    But, yes, maybe they did.

    More than likely Jesus is a composite character based on a number of other people preaching similar messages as well as Persian religious myths such as Mithra (note how easily you accepted that Mithra was myth, didn't even pause probably). Sure that probably pisses Xians off? Well I don't know what to say. It pisses them off you say Jesus is a Prophet and not God. I accept that's just the way things usually go when you discuss religion - isn't it? I mean, countless numbers of humans have died and continue to needlessly die over belief. Which is really why I think archeologically is good. It's a way to bring some objective sanity to an otherwise (IMO) insane topic.

    How in the world did you go from the quoted section in my post to your rant?

    I don't get it? Logically speaking there is equal amount of good evidence for Xenu as there is for Allah. Saying as much is not being an academically superior atheist prick. It's being honest.


    Here's my POV: We know some Japanese today worship the Japanese Goddess Amaterasu in the Shinto religion. Now, I know you don't believe there is a Goddess named Amaterasu. Suppose you said as much? Would that mean you're a Islamic prick whose "theories," (if they can even be called as such) are nothing more than conspiracy theories based upon you're own intolerance of Shinto and Japanese?

    -OR-

    Would it simply mean that there is no good evidence for Amaterasu? If you were interested in the history, wouldn't you naturally look for one based on archeological evidence not on Shinto myth about the creation of the world? I mean, try to see things objectively. Objectively speaking there's no more or less evidence for Amaterasu as there is for Xenu. Good evidence either of these beings exist is equal. People still worship them both. There is the SAME amount of good evidence that the Japanese Shinto Goddess Amaterasu exists as there is the Muslims Islamic God Allah exists. That is a fact.


    Maybe I phrased jumping up and down a little harshly. I meant: no matter how much you "SAY" something, what matters is evidence because we're talking about "science" -- which is evidence based.


    OK, I will gladly look up the coin references when I have some time. BUT, come on, you linked me to a list of coins and I checked it and the first one was pre-Islam. Then you linked me to coin and it was post the contemporary Mohammad (a full two generations later). What do you expect me to do here? I'm checking your links. I mean, I sent you to a free online JOSTR Journal with the whole history of YOUR coin?

    One more time. I'm more than happy to agree Mohammad (a person) may have existed - if I can have some proof. The gold coins had no description I couldn't see where to even find where they came from. The other coin was a full 2 generations AFTER a hypothetical Mohammad would have died and the other from the time of Mohammad but was of a Persian King and didn't say anything about Islam. The link said: No Islamic Character. Geesh.... :bugeye:


    I'll look up there references when I have some time.
    I started to read the chapter on... coins! But, I'm actually getting busy and need to stop procrastinating.
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2010
  22. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    How do you explain the Star and Crescent both on pre-Islamic Persian coins as well as on top of post-Islamic Mosques'? Mosque architecture is a continuation of pre-Islamic architecture of palaces built during the Parthian and Sassanian dynasties of Persia. Why use identical symbolism and the same buildings?

    Yes I agree.

    I was referring to the Star and Crescent that is clearly evident on the Sassanid Persia King Khostau II coin. See, I assumed the Star and Crescent was "Islamic" because it appears above Mosques. I hadn't known that it was actually a Persian Zoroastrian symbol that pre-dates Islam. More evidence that "Islam" evolved and incorporated symbolism from earlier faiths in and around that area. Possibly from the Zoroastrian-Christian faiths of the time. I mean, Christianity is clearly modeled on Persian Mythraism - there was a LOT of exchange in ideas as we can find Persian Mthranic remains as far away as ENGLAND.

    Unless you have another LOGICAL explanation for a Zoroastrian Star and Crescent to be the highest symbol on Mosques?


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Also, logically speaking, what other rational explanation is there?

    Again, if we assume you are correct and a person named Mohammad actually did exist (and he wasn't a Christian Patriarch) then the only logical explanation I can think of would be if this Mohammad person pretended to hear an angel talk to him and then regaled his followers with a mishmash of Biblical stories as best as he could remember from having heard them on his travels to sell goods in or near Syria.

    Which is fine, but why fixate on the Bible if you're not Christian?

    Sure, it could just be dumb luck Mohammad just happened to pick out the Bible, but this seems highly unlikely - especially given the massive influence of Christianity in the region. That's why I asked why this person would be so smitten with Biblical mythology? It seems like the logical answer that he was a Christian. Why else tell his followers Bible tales?

    Can you think of any other reason why?



    However, IMO it seems even more reasonable that other people collected common in-house Biblical literature and compiled it all at a later date, perhaps partly due to a schizm over the divinity of Christ as well as to fit the needs of the new rulers and over time this developed into a new religion which is what we call Islam today. I've given it a lot of thought, and really this seems (at least for now) to make the most logical sense.

    Such a hypothesis explains the present data with the least complexity. We explain Greek and Roman, Japanese and Chinese, Aztec and Mayan, Jewish and Chritian mythologist quite easily without their respective Gods and the same is true in this case as well. Which, while this may not make some people happy, I think it's the natural evolution of all societies to question their myths once they reach a certain level of sophistication since the time of the Greek Philosophers (which Arabs would have had and have had a close cultural connection with).

    We'll see where we are in a few years time (I've said as much in the past and I have modified my belief as new evidence arises).


    As an aside, even though I'm atheist, I certainly don't think societies should be, at this time, atheist. Atheism is the natural disposition under certain social environments, mainly peaceful, well educated and relatively secure. It's why there was a massive shift towards atheism in Europe and Japan recently. Even China was atheist when people (even though poor) felt cared for and safe. Now that the Chinese are Capitalistic and ditched the free medical - religion is naturally making a come back. Unfortunately Xianity is in vogue in many cities (all things Western). I'm hoping the government pushes for more Daoism and Buddhism. So, for what it's worth, I do think theism has it's place in society. We can see by the combination of Buddhism and Shintoism in Japan, theology doesn't need to be set in a mutually exclusive paradigm and certainly needn't mandate the inferiority of other people's belief systems. It's possible to create a system where said intolerance isn't even applicable.
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2010

Share This Page