Posted on 08/02/2016 6:54:03 AM PDT by wtd
by Emmet Scott
In my Impact of Islam (2014) and Guide to the Phantom Dark Age (2014) I argued in some detail that Muhammad was a fictitious character conjured to life by the Umayyad Caliphs in the late seventh century in order to justify and legitimize the Arab usurpation of the Persian Sassanid Empire. In the above studies I also suggested that the earliest “Islam” was spread by the Sassanid Empire and that the great “Arab Conquests” of Anatolia, Syria and Egypt were in reality carried out by Persian armies. Certainly the earliest Islam detected by archaeologists is thoroughly Persian in character in terms of art, architecture, iconography, and even pottery. Thus for example, the crescent moon with the star, Islam’s symbol par excellence, is in fact an Iranian religious motif and appears on Persian coins many centuries before the advent of Islam.
In the above two volumes I also argued that the Sassanid king Chosroes II (reigned 590-628) converted to the Ebionite (or Judaic) form of Christianity (or, more accurately, Judaic Jesus movement) and that Ebionitism, popular throughout the Middle East since the fourth century, formed the doctrinal bedrock of what later came to be known as Islam. I suggested too that the Qur’an was originally an Ebionite devotional text written in Aramaic, and that it was only under the Umayyad Caliphs (beginning with Mu’awiya) that the book was transcribed into Arabic — a transcription which changed the meaning of many passages.
The Ebionite cult was doctrinally almost identical to Islam; it accepted the Mosaic Code, with all it implied (circumcision, halal/kosher food, divorce, stoning for adultery, etc.), yet also saw Jesus as a prophet — though not the Son of God. That Chosroes II converted to Ebionitism is suggested by a number of clues. First and foremost, he is known to have converted to some form of Christianity (usually described as “Syriac”) after his marriage to the beautiful Syrian princess Shirin, who was also a Christian of some variety. Secondly, and crucially, he began to issue coins bearing the Aramaic legend bism Allah, “in the name of God.” These coins are regarded as the earliest Islamic coins and are usually believed to have been issued by one of the conquering Rashidun caliphs, either Umar or Uthman. Yet the same coins have the image of Chosroes II and his name in Pahlavi script, as well as a Zoroastrian fire temple on the reverse side. It is inconceivable that any Islamic ruler — (in our modern understanding of Islamic) would have issued coins of this design. Yet in spite of that the coins are routinely ascribed to Arab caliphs, for the simple reason that to assign them to the man whose name appears on them — Chosroes II — would mean placing a question mark on the whole of early Islamic history. And that is something historians have as yet been unwilling to do.
We know that a decade or so after Chosroes’ death the throne was occupied by Yazdegerd III, his grandson. Yazdegerd was the last Sassanid Emperor and we are told that in his time Persia was conquered by the armies of Caliph Umar. Yet Yazdegerd’s coins also display the legend bism Allah, as well as the Zoroastrian fire temple. Now it may just be conceivable that the Arabs could have for convenience continued to use the basic design of coins minted by the last Sassanid emperor, Yazdegerd III, but why continue to mint coins with the name of an earlier Persian king, Chosroes II, one who moreover had died a decade and a half earlier?
Caliph Umar, the reputed Arab conqueror of Persia, was said to have been assassinated by a Persian captive/slave named Piruz Nahavandi sometime around 645. Interestingly, the assassin, though regarded as a villain by Sunni Muslims, is seen as something of a hero, or even saint, by Shias, who report a tradition that he was miraculously saved from retribution and transported to Kashan in Persia, where he lived out his days amongst the adherents of Ali. The tomb of Nahavandi is still a center of pilgrimage for Shia Muslims.
And this brings us to a crucial point: The Rashidun, or “Rightly-Guided” Caliphs, the first three caliphs who are said to have conquered much of the Byzantine and Persian lands, are not honoured by the Shias of Persia, but are regarded as usurpers and impostors. Only Ali, the son-in-law and cousin of Muhammad and last of the Rashidun, is regarded as a legitimate commander of the faithful. In Shia belief, only Ali was legitimate, since he was of the bloodline of the Prophet.
Ali himself was assassinated by a Kharijite during a war of succession against Mu’awiya, supposedly in 661. Now it so happens that Mu’awiya is the first Islamic ruler to bequeath to us artefacts bearing his name: Neither Muhammad himself nor any of the “Rightly-Guided” Caliphs who came after him has left so much as a brick or inscription to mark his existence. This is an extraordinary state of affairs, for we are told that by the time of Ali’s death the lands of the Caliphate stretched from the borders of India in the east to Carthage in the west. For forty years then the Islamic world, a large and expanding empire, had been ruled by Caliphs who failed to leave a single artefact attesting to their existence. This is a situation unique to the early Islamic world, and must make us wonder whether any of the aforementioned characters actually existed.
Examination of the Qur’an, as Christof Luxenberg and others have shown, would suggest that the answer to the latter question would be “no.” As Luxenberg pointed out (The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran, 2007), up to one third of the Qur’an makes no sense when read as an Arabic text. However, read as an Aramaic text, the whole book makes perfect sense, and reveals itself to be a devotional text belonging to some form of Christian sect. Jesus (Isa) appears twenty-five times in the Qur’an whereas Muhammad appears only four times. The name “Muhammad” implies “chosen one” or “praised one” in Aramaic (and Arabic) and the coins of Mu’awiya, which show a man holding a cross along with the name MHMT (Muhammad) would suggest that “Muhammad” was originally a title for Jesus. This is an opinion rapidly gaining ground amongst historians and lexicographers. At least three of the occurrences of the name “Muhammad” in the Qur’an could easily be interpreted as referring to Jesus, and even the fourth could conceivably be viewed in the same light.
Aside from Jesus and his mother Mary (Maryam) virtually all of the characters encountered in the Qur’an belong to the Old Testament, indicating a profoundly Jewish background to the text. Moses, for example, is mentioned 136 times, and more to the point, Jesus is identified as the nephew of Moses. This would suggest that the Qur’an’s Jesus (Hebrew Yehoshua) has been confused with the Old Testament Joshua (also Yehoshua in Hebrew), who was indeed from the next generation after Moses. Now whereas Jesus of the New Testament was more or less a complete pacifist, Joshua of the Old Testament was a war leader, and quite a brutal one at that. Could it be that the Jesus (Isa) of the Qur’an owes more to Joshua than to Jesus? In any event, if Muhammad was originally an honorary title for Jesus, this means that no historical character named Muhammad ever existed and the whole story of Islam’s origins and early development is a myth.
All of which brings us back to the first Umayyad Caliph Mu’awiya. With the latter ruler a process of Arabization began, and it is an extraordinary coincidence, if coincidence it is, that the first archaeological traces of an Arab Islamic civilization (as opposed to a Persian Islamic civilization) are found precisely in the reign of Mu’awiya, the man whose life marks the great divide between Arab Sunni and Persian Shia Islam. I would suggest then that Mu’awiya was an Arab general in the employ of the Sassanid Empire, who staged a coup d’état against his Persian masters and seized the Sassanid throne. It is known that huge numbers of Arab troops, along with entire Arab tribes and peoples, such as the Lakhmids, were affiliated to the Sassanids and formed an important part of Sassanid armies. Interestingly, the Lakhmids, whose territory included a large part of south-west Iraq and north-east Saudi Arabia, are known to have converted to some form of Christianity, usually described as Nestorian, in the sixth century. With the murder of Chosroes II in 628 the Sassanid Empire was rent by civil war, with rival factions vying for control of the state for over a decade. In the midst of this turbulent period, I suggest, Arab generals played a prominent role, initially installing kings on the throne and finally, under the leadership of Mu’awiya, seizing the throne itself. We should note that barbarian troops and generals behaved in the same way in the latter centuries of the Roman Empire. The Arabs, long minor partners in the Sassanid Empire, now found themselves in control, and they had no intention of letting it slip. A process of Arabization began: The Qur’an, previously known to all as an Aramaic document, was now transcribed into Arabic, and to complete the process “Muhammad,” previously a title of Jesus, was now transformed into a conquering Arab prophet, who emerged from the deserts of Arabia at the head of victorious armies. Arab generals, who had taken part in the wars for the Sassanid throne following the murder of Chosroes II, were transformed into conquering caliphs, and a story was concocted telling how these men subdued the mighty Sassanid state.
By the late seventh and early eighth centuries a veritable industry grew up producing hadiths which purported to describe incidents in the life of the newly-invented Prophet Muhammad, hadiths which often contradicted some parts of the Qur’an itself and which explained the contradictions by the expedient of “abrogation”. In short, the Prophet had changed his mind about this or that, following a new revelation from God, and cancelled his earlier teaching.
But the peoples of Iran could not be completely taken in by this process. They well knew that the Arabs were usurpers, and whilst they accepted that “Muhammad” was indeed a prophet who spoke a Semitic language (i.e. Jesus), they denied the legitimacy of the men who wrought such havoc in the Persian homeland following the death of Chosroes II, men such as Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman. Only Ali was accepted as a genuine leader because “Ali” too (the “high” or “elevated one”), as Volker Popp has noted, was another honorary title for Jesus. (See Popp, “The Early History of Islam” in Karl Heinz Ohlig and Gerd. R Puin eds. The Hidden Origins of Islam)
Chronology of Islam’s Early Origins.
4th to 6th century:
"Ebionitism, a Jewish “Jesus movement”, spreads throughout Syria, Mesopotamia and Arabia. The Ebionites rejected the Four Gospels and insisted that Jesus was a faithful Jew who never challenged the laws laid down by Moses.
Circa 600:
Chosroes II, a Sassanid king resident in Aramaic-speaking Ctesiphon, embraces Ebionitism and accords it a privileged position within the Sassanid Empire.
614:
Sassanids, with large contingents of Arab troops, capture Jerusalem and carry out a massacre of the Christian population.
620:
Sassanids, with Arab mercenaries and allies, conquer Egypt.
640:
Arab troops, commanded by Mu’awiya, stage a coup d’état against Yazdegerd III and seize control of large parts of the Sassanid Empire, including much of the Iranian Plateau.
660:
Capital of the Empire moved from Ctesiphon to Arabic-speaking Damascus and the Arabization of the court commences.
670:
Document henceforth known as the Qur’an transcribed into Arabic with many changes of meaning from the Aramaic original.
Interesting indeed. I think a couple of books worth reading.
Seems to me Muhammad is a well documented historical figure. -Tom
Robert Spencer has some similar titles, and excellent works on the subject.
A more general rule can be noticed: barbarians do not create new states but are quite capable on taking over old states and changing them to serve their interests.
cf. the fall of the Roman Empire with Germanic generals initially running Roman provinces the Roman way, or the Norman conquests of parts of Europe later.
Yeah I have his Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades). Nice read.
Academic scholars such as Angelika Neuwirth, Christoph Luxenberg, Patricia Crone etc. examine early versions of the koranic texts and appear to agree that Arabic is not the mother language in these original texts, which makes sense given the Arabs were predominantly illiterate.
Scott's hypotheses are largely derived from surviving historical artifacts. Ask yourself, is it mere coincidence that throughout the existence of Islam, doctrinal jahiliyya triggered the elimination of artifacts and evidence contrary to islam's established narrative of supremacy?
Any specific version (link?) you like?
What is really new here is that there was no conquest of Persia.. at most a subversion.
And here we are, fourteen centuries later, still dealing with the results regardless of their origins.
We’re still dealing with a seventh century battle plan masquerading as a religion, and have followers of nineteenth century communist ideology latching onto it, and wielding it like a club over all of mankind.
Islam and communism is a match made in hell, solely to recreate hell on earth.
There are plenty of theories around that Muhammad and Christ did not exist.
Whether they did or not exist is not a problem to me.(an agnostic)
In the case of Muhammed the problem is what Muslims believe , and not what you or I believe or what is true or not true.
Islam is a fatal religious belief for us Infidels, when Muslim believers are willing to kill us and die for their beliefs.
Christianity is not a fatal threat to others if you don't stay in the religion or join it, if the New Testament and the 10 commandments are followed.
The only threat Christianity poses is it is no match for Islam in its naive be nice to others belief system that Muslims will take advantage of, and are doing that right now -Tom
I could not agree with you more. that is not to be badmouthing Catholicism, but, most people have no true ideas about Constantine and the early Bishops of The Church.,
There is much in Roman Catholicism that is similar in every other early Christian Church, especially The Sacraments. The mechanics of church operation is way different in the different churches and in the Roman church many of the organizational structures of government were put into place in The Church.
While none of those things has much to do with the central doctrines of The Church, namely that God sent His Son to earth to be perfect so that he could innocently take our punishment for sins and to also allow his life to be innocently given for our sin so that we could live again with God. Since we were not perfect and any imperfect being could not stand to be in the presence of God someone had to be punished for our sin so we could stand before God and be judged sinless. From there however doctrines vary greatly.
Prior to Constantine there was much division in The Church, different Bishops taught different doctrines. Once the Apostles were dead and those that walked with them were gone there was no longer a good connection to a source of knowledge that could set everybody straight on to the same path. I believe that Constantine saw this and realized that it must not continue in this disorganized fashion. He was after all a general and emperor, positions that were all about organization.
After the some 300 or so bishops gathered and presented their view of doctrine he made a decision of what doctrines all would follow. Probably a wise decision for the health of The Church. Unfortunately in my opinion, after the council in 325 and especially after the 385 council great power over life and death and possessions were given to bishops and people were forced to either believe or forfeit all their possessions and their lives in many cases. Many were allowed to be banished for nearly 100 years but after that it was very much like Islam is today, be true to the faith or die. This worked very well until the printing press brought us into an age of enlightenment over a thousand years later. I would not like to have been a citizen of Rome in 325 but would love to go and visit and learn more of the people and their religion then.
I’m a lot less interested in the beginnings of this muslim crap than I am about how it ends.
Interesting theory.
Historical events around that time could have supported this, included the discovery of gold in Arabia (near Medina - possibly the earlier site of King Solomon’s mines), which increased the relative wealth and power of Arab tribes within the Empire, and the plague of justinian (541-542) which devastated Persian (and Byzantine) cities, weakening older elites.
It used to be common (the norm) that the King picked the religion for his realm.
Orthodox Christianity still has a close tie to the government - each nation has its own church - Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, etc.
I fail to see the great similarity between Catholicism and Islam though.
Capt. Tom wrote: "... the problem is what Muslims believe..."Again, while I believe you and I are on the same page with regards to concern about Islam, my interest in it's beginnings persists.
As for their beliefs, they too are subject to interpretation as well...
"...historic sites lost include the Prophet’s birthplace – now a library – and the house of his first wife, Khadijah, which was replaced with a public toilet block..."
This is understandable from a Wahhabi perspective- the Saudis are Wahabbis.
Muhammad Wahhab in the 1700s was outraged by the Muslims who had drifted from the fundamentals of Islam and introduced praying at graves of former famous Muslims and sinking to the level of thinking that certain trees had spiritual use.
Wahhabis wanted nothing between a Muslim and Allah.
There is nothing sacred but Allah, not even Muhhamad, Allah's prophet.
The Wahhabis destroyed these "innovations" and killed many heretical Muslims who drifted away from following the way Muhammad set the example on how to be a fundamental Muslim.-Tom
Spencer is excellent and I like him, but if one wants real insight into Islam’s origins, read/view Avi Lipkin a.k.a. Victor Mordecai.
There is no substitute for living ME languages and there is no substitute for living in the ME.
One may never view 9/11 or Islam in the same way again.
Look at who REALLY wrote the Quran and the embedded identifiers within.
I fail to see the great similarity between Catholicism and Islam though.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You can’t be serious!?
1. The perfect *man* who walked the earth and must be emulated.
2. Conversion and conquest by the sword.
3. An institutionalized and insatiable sodomite raping of their own little boys in a religious and/or normalized framework.
4. ABSOLUTE authority.
5. Claims of “true” Abrahamic lineage.
6. Demonic obsession with blood.
7. In The End THEY will reign supreme.
8. Acquisition of ***Jews’*** most Holy sites.
9. Etc.
Talk about a natural alliance! and the Pope himself has embraced Islam and expects his billion plus followers to do the same. Exactly as Prophesied.
Christians and Muslims who believe in False Gods don’t get much in The End.
And now the final similarity: There is no afterlife of infinity of pleasure: No magic carpet rides to Jesus, pre, secret-pre, mid, or post, and no 72 virgins. It is all a sham, to control. What one “gets” in the afterlife depends on what one “gives” in this life and most importantly in what God one believes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.