The Sunni-Shia Divide and Islam’s Puzzling Origins

Gates of Vienna Blog ^ | August 2, 2016 | Emmet Scott

[Lent]

Interesting indeed. I think a couple of books worth reading.

[Capt. Tom]

I don't know how you could make a case Muhammad did not exist when there are at least 6 different Hadiths where the different authors interviewed people who knew Muhammad, were his warriors , were married to him, and were his friends who related what Muhammad said and did about implementing Islam.

Seems to me Muhammad is a well documented historical figure. -Tom

[CondorFlight]

Robert Spencer has some similar titles, and excellent works on the subject.

[mvonfr]

Very interesting and highly plausible.

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.

[Lent]

Yeah I have his Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades). Nice read.

[ResisTyr]

Do some research into the origins of Islam and the Roman Catholic Church. I think you might find it "eye-opening" if not "eys-popping-out-of-your-head" 😞

[wtd]

There are multiple cases suggesting Muhammed did not exist since the texts origination remains in question. For instance: The Lost Archive, Missing for a half century, a cache of photos spurs sensitive research on Islam's holy text

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?

[mvonfr]

Did enough of research already :P Plenty of theories.

Any specific version (link?) you like?

[mvonfr]

That Muhammed never existed was suggested many times before and is near certain.

What is really new here is that there was no conquest of Persia.. at most a subversion.

[factoryrat]

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.

[Capt. Tom]

There are multiple cases suggesting Muhammed did not exist since the texts origination remains in question.

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

[JAKraig]

Do some research into the origins of Islam and the Roman Catholic Church. I think you might find it “eye-opening” if not “eys-popping-out-of-your-head” 😞 _______________________________________________________

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.

[onedoug]

I’m a lot less interested in the beginnings of this muslim crap than I am about how it ends.

[BeauBo]

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.

[BeauBo]

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.

[wtd]

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...

• UKIndependent 10/2012: Medina: Saudis take a bulldozer to Islam's history

  "...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..."

[Capt. Tom]

"...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

[Mr. M.J.B.]

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.

[Mr. M.J.B.]

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.