The Myth of Mecca (oldie but goodie)

pol usa ^ | 9/27/2001 | By Jack Wheeler

[Support Free Republic]

Rank	Location	Receipts	Donors/Avg		Freepers/Avg		Monthlies
7	Georgia	395.00	9	43.89	439	0.90	150.00	11

Thanks for donating to Free Republic!

Move your locale up the leaderboard!

[The Man]

This sounds like historical revisionism to me.

[Radix]

That is quite the post.

 

 

"Once the Arabs had acquired an empire, a coherent religion was required in order to hold that empire together and legitimize their rule."

 

" Islam is an invention for the purpose of providing a religious justification for Arab Imperialism. The Conquest is the reason and explanation for Islam, not the other way around."

 

"Once the Arabs had acquired an empire, a coherent religion was required in order to hold that empire together and legitimize their rule."

 

We don't know about the Myth of Mecca because we are afraid to. We, Americans and Westerners and participants of civilization, have been intimidated and frightened into examining the historical truth regarding Islam. Dare to criticize Islam and some crazed ayatollah will issue a fatwah calling for your death.

 

The words must be read thoughtfully and critically, and the wisdom they contain extracted with reflection, not reflexively.

 

 

 

 

[polemikos]

Archive Posts with Comments

The Myth of Mecca
with 10 comments

The Myth of Mecca
with 140 comments

[Cicero]

Interesting. But I'm hesitant to jump right in and accept what it says, because all this sounds suspiciously like Scientific Bible Criticism which, under the pretence of scientific study of the Bible, was really an ideological movement intended to undermine Christianity and Judaism. (As an article in Culture Wars pointed out, Scientific Bible criticism began in Germany around 1870 when Bismark, who wanted to discredit Christianity, funded a university chair for a professor whose theories he found very helpful to the "modernization" of Germany.)

If there's any truth in these theories, they should certainly be pursued. But don't count on Muslims to be persuaded by them.

[RLK]

Islam is a form of aggressive madness. How much of it is formed from an original hoax is questionable, but worth considering. The followers of that madness and/or hoax are dangerous.

[LibWhacker]

Let's face it . . . Islam began in the year 666 AD.

[quadrant]

There is a difference between additional research and historical revisionism.

Additonal research adds to our body of knowledge. Historical revisionism merely changes our interpretation of what is known already. There is nothing wrong with a reinterpretation of history or emphasis on fact hitherto ommited or ignored. However, if the reinterpretation is designed to serve a political purpose, then it descends into propaganda. And it should be remembered that propaganda was used first in a religious context.

Very little is known about the life of Mohammed, beyond what is put forward by Islamic scholars and clerics, two groups with an obvious interest in the propagation of Islam.
Islamic bleiefs and claims have never been subjected to the sort of rigorous analysis and scholarship to which Christianity and Judaism are the frequent subjects.
Its seems from what I've read here and in other places that there has been an attempt to obscure certain parts of Mohammed's life.
This attempt to conceal should be contrasted with the search by Christians and Jews to learn all they can about the lives of their leaders and prophets.

[RonWebb]

I guess I'm missing the point of this. Are you implying that Islam is not a valid religion because some of its traditions (allegedly) aren't historically accurate?

Christ wasn't born on Christmas Day either, and many of the principles of Christianity weren't codified until several hundred years after his death. Does this invalidate Christianity?

[Petronski]

Very little is known about the life of Mohammed, beyond what is put forward by Islamic scholars and clerics, two groups with an obvious interest in the propagation of Islam.

But we can know him by his fruits.

[mtbopfuyn]

Um, it's not the only made up religion.

[Radix]

..under the pretence of scientific study of the Bible, was really an ideological movement intended to undermine Christianity and Judaism.

I had a difficult time when I first encountered the "higher critics" in my College studies. I had to write certain term papers and deal "objectively" with that peculiar phenomenon.

It was a difficult time in my life.

Higher critics.

As if they were relevant.

Unfortunately. I was not forewarned. That is a sad commentary on those who would present themselves as Elders, or Pastors. They ( in my experience) are largely remiss in their most serious obligations. Of course, noone reading this post knows anyone like the people that I have known.

[Radix]

Very little is known about the life of Mohammed, beyond what is put forward by Islamic scholars and clerics, two groups with an obvious interest in the propagation of Islam...

As a student of Eschatology, I am of the mind set that the Mosque of Omar, (or Dome of the rock) is all that I need to know about Mohammed, and his adherents.

They are doomed, but it might not seem that way with just a cursory glance. You might want to take a few notes, and do some research.

[wizardoz]

Islam is a form of aggressive madness. How much of it is formed from an original hoax is questionable, but worth considering. The followers of that madness and/or hoax are dangerous.

LOL... I just finished watching the movie "28 Days." Watching the virus "Rage" spread through London, I couldn't help but think....

[VoiceOfBruck]

I hope that dedicated Islamic scholars will appear on the scene to create such a salvatory synergy

Ha ha, me too!

[det dweller too]

Scientific Bible criticism began in Germany around 1870 when Bismark, who wanted to discredit Christianity, funded a university chair for a professor whose theories he found very helpful to the "modernization" of Germany.)

Well, dont leave us hanging. WHO was that professor that the Bismark funded? What was the University? Did that professor publish anything?

[LiteKeeper]

INTREP

[TalBlack]

"....Christianity emerged from its Dark Ages when its sacred texts were considered infallible and criticism condemned (often to death) as heresy, to subject itself to historical examination and rational discussion. It is stronger for it."

The dfifference is that Christianity, like Judaisim is ligitimized in and by the old and new testaments. Islam's "prophet" IS NOT mentioned or fortold except perhaps in the matter of the "False Phrophet"


".....As Al-Rawandi puts it:

"The claims of Islam do not depend on historical origins, but on an inner knowledge of God, the accompaniment and reward of piety. What makes Islam true is the spiritual life of Moslems, not religious history but religious experience."

The sad thing is he is not kidding I mean, piety in God thru a FAKE religion!!!? OOOOOOOK!