It wasn't Mohammed who founded Islam.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

As I understand the facts there is no evidence that Mohammed was the driving force behind Islam. Islam expanded through Egypt, Palestine, North Africa, Persia, etc., before 700 ad, but this expansion was not described by contemporary writers are being driven by the teachings of Mohammed and there was no mention of the Koran. Mohammed doesn't come into the picture until 697 ad, 65 years after his supposed death. The Mosques were rebuilt early in the 8th century to face Mecca (not shortly after Mo's death). Commentators in the early 700s complained that the Quraysh tribe from Arabia were trying to take over and were inventing stories about Mohammed. The Koran, I am convinced, was written around 770 ad by a single individual of very high status. I think Nestorians were more likely to have been the original founding force behind Islam. Mohammed's lot came later ... and appear to have rewritten history to suit themselves.

According to sources, Uthman's committee wrote the Koran. The hadiths were written centuries after Mohammed supposedly bit the dust. One thing is for sure and that's no one outside of Arabia ever saw Mohammed or anyone who claimed to have been him. Almost all successful movements of any kind are based upon imaginary or very dead characters. That way the creators get to freeze the character's actions and words for all time. Live people can change their beliefs and words as conditions change. That would disrupt the movement.

---

---

As I understand the facts there is no evidence that Mohammed was the driving force behind Islam. Islam expanded through Egypt, Palestine, North Africa, Persia, etc., before 700 ad, but this expansion was not described by contemporary writers are being driven by the teachings of Mohammed and there was no mention of the Koran. Mohammed doesn't come into the picture until 697 ad, 65 years after his supposed death. The Mosques were rebuilt early in the 8th century to face Mecca (not shortly after Mo's death). Commentators in the early 700s complained that the Quraysh tribe from Arabia were trying to take over and were inventing stories about Mohammed. The Koran, I am convinced, was written around 770 ad by a single individual of very high status. I think Nestorians were more likely to have been the original founding force behind Islam. Mohammed's lot came later ... and appear to have rewritten history to suit themselves.

---

This is not surprising, as a parallel it wasn't Jesus who started Christianity, it was St Peter or St James, depending on which denomination you follow.

MM

Paul started Christianity. He was the first to write about the Jesus character and he created the Christian doctrine and rituals, according to the Biblical fairy tale. James and Peter didn't do squat.

[Minimalist]

Sophronius, the patriarch of Jerusalem in 636-7 when the city was surrendered to the Arab army of Caliph Umar, has written on the siege and surrender and knows nothing about islam or muhammad. He refers to the saracens as godless pagans. Sophronius died in 638 or 9 which gives us a fairly stable date for his commentary.

Curiously, there had been an earlier revolt by local jews aided by the Persians against Heraclitus and the Byzantines in 614. A jewish state was reestablished until peace was declared between the Byzantines and Persians in 628. The jews suffered a massacre at the hands of the Byzantines in retaliation.

For this reason it is frequently implied that the jews were not all that unhappy to see the Arabs coming.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Sophronius, the patriarch of Jerusalem in 636-7 when the city was surrendered to the Arab army of Caliph Umar, has written on the siege and surrender and knows nothing about islam or muhammad. He refers to the saracens as godless pagans. Sophronius died in 638 or 9 which gives us a fairly stable date for his commentary.

Curiously, there had been an earlier revolt by local jews aided by the Persians against Heraclitus and the Byzantines in 614. A jewish state was reestablished until peace was declared between the Byzantines and Persians in 628. The jews suffered a massacre at the hands of the Byzantines in retaliation.

For this reason it is frequently implied that the jews were not all that unhappy to see the Arabs coming.

The Jews and muslims have been collaborators since Mohammed was a baby. Islam is pretty much Old Testament Judaism without the Jews. Most of their doctrines are identical.

[CapnAwesome]

As I understand the facts there is no evidence that Mohammed was the driving force behind Islam. Islam expanded through Egypt, Palestine, North Africa, Persia, etc., before 700 ad, but this expansion was not described by contemporary writers are being driven by the teachings of Mohammed and there was no mention of the Koran. Mohammed doesn't come into the picture until 697 ad, 65 years after his supposed death. The Mosques were rebuilt early in the 8th century to face Mecca (not shortly after Mo's death). Commentators in the early 700s complained that the Quraysh tribe from Arabia were trying to take over and were inventing stories about Mohammed. The Koran, I am convinced, was written around 770 ad by a single individual of very high status. I think Nestorians were more likely to have been the original founding force behind Islam. Mohammed's lot came later ... and appear to have rewritten history to suit themselves.

Ghengis Khan doesn't have any surviving contemporary writing about him either. This in and of itself is not the be all and end all of history.

[dyresand]

Sophronius, the patriarch of Jerusalem in 636-7 when the city was surrendered to the Arab army of Caliph Umar, has written on the siege and surrender and knows nothing about islam or muhammad. He refers to the saracens as godless pagans. Sophronius died in 638 or 9 which gives us a fairly stable date for his commentary.

Curiously, there had been an earlier revolt by local jews aided by the Persians against Heraclitus and the Byzantines in 614. A jewish state was reestablished until peace was declared between the Byzantines and Persians in 628. The jews suffered a massacre at the hands of the Byzantines in retaliation.

For this reason it is frequently implied that the jews were not all that unhappy to see the Arabs coming.

The Jews and muslims have been collaborators since Mohammed was a baby. Islam is pretty much Old Testament Judaism without the Jews. Most of their doctrines are identical.

So it makes no since for a Muslim radicals to be killing jews if they follow the same teachings its barbaric and unnecessary.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

---

The Jews and muslims have been collaborators since Mohammed was a baby. Islam is pretty much Old Testament Judaism without the Jews. Most of their doctrines are identical.

---

So it makes no since for a Muslim radicals to be killing jews if they follow the same teachings its barbaric and unnecessary.

The thing is that each basic group has so many sects that they can't reach a consensus except that each one is the "chosen people". The most amazing thing though is that the Koran is actually the "lite" version of the Old Testament. If they actually followed the Old Testament it would indeed be hell on Earth.

[dyresand]

---

---

So it makes no since for a Muslim radicals to be killing jews if they follow the same teachings its barbaric and unnecessary.

The thing is that each basic group has so many sects that they can't reach a consensus except that each one is the "chosen people". The most amazing thing though is that the Koran is actually the "lite" version of the Old Testament. If they actually followed the Old Testament it would indeed be hell on Earth.

Lets be thankful they aren't following the OT or well the christian bible.

[pocaracas]

But there's one hitch.... all these wiki pages and their sources... they're biased by the muslim religion...

Not just Wiki but also all of the 99% of historians and scholars and every professor around the world who disagree with you are also biased by the Muslim religion, right?

Disagree with me?
So then tell me where they got their info from?

Anyway, biased does not mean wrong. You should know that. It just means some flourishes must have been added to the tale (and some nasties were removed) in the recounting that eventually settled in the written form.

Can you honestly say that all the information regarding Mohammad and his descendants is recorded exactly as it happened for real?

As I said way up there... Abd Al-Malik was the guy who made it the "state religion"... the guy who made arabic the "state language"... the guy, most likely, had his scribes write the qur'an as a political tool, following the best practices of the romans when they took on the bible.

And here you've posted a link to Wiki on Abd-Al-Malik to support your argument, even though you claimed that Wiki is biased. And the link still doesn't say anything about Abd-Al-Malik being the official founder of Islam. It says that he simply "consolidated Muslim rule and extended it, made Arabic the state language, and organized a regular postal service." That's not the same thing as starting the religion. He just consolidated and extend the Muslim rule, which indicates that there were already Muslims ruling the land before he started doing this.

sigh... religion is different from cult.
The tribal cult that sprung up after Mohammad's death, became a basis to the religion he instated throughout the empire.
And, following the best roman practices, he must have incorporated a few elements from each area of the empire, so that all would feel like they belong to this new religion.

Not to mention that the part in bold is pure conjecture, with no reference or source provided. It's very clear to me that you're just grasping at straws here.

There's no need for me to debate about this anymore even. Say whatever you want ...

And Mo getting godlike intel from an angel, memorizing all of it, recounting it all to this tribe, having those people go on recounting it to their descendents and those to their descendents, all the while they're in an ongoing war for territory, until someone remembers to gather all of them and write it down for posterity.... and what was written was verbatim what the angel told Mo... that makes sense and is in accordance with everything we know of human nature...
Talk about grasping at straws... -.-'

[JesusHChrist]

Yes, the fanciful "facts" surrounding the creation of the Koran are far more likely to have occurred as described (100 years later) rather than the rather mundane doings of a local warlord (or warlords), intent on expanding a political power base. Nah, couldn't be that.

Just like it's far more likely Jesus was the son of a god, born of a virgin and is watching over everything we do. Hi Jesus! Nice sweater!

Just like it's far more likely Joseph Smith actually was visited by an angel and read some magic golden plates out of a hat.

Just like it's far more likely Xenu is still trapped in his prison in the Pyrenees, with a gate powered by an immortal battery(!), rather than the tale being the meanderings of a so-so sci-fi author. I did rather like Battlefield Earth (the novel, not the movie! I'm not a savage.)

Please.

[Rayaan]

Disagree with me?
So then tell me where they got their info from?

From oral tradition and early Muslim historians. There are also written records of Muhammad coming from both Muslims and non-Muslims, though they may be posthumous.

You still haven't told me where you got your info from about Abd-Al-Malik being the official founder of Islam.

Anyway, biased does not mean wrong. You should know that. It just means some flourishes must have been added to the tale (and some nasties were removed) in the recounting that eventually settled in the written form.

Well, even if we take bias to mean that some things were added to or omitted from the final written form, that still doesn't the justify the claim (let alone prove) that Abd-Al-Malik and his scribes were behind all of this.

Can you honestly say that all the information regarding Mohammad and his descendants is recorded exactly as it happened for real?

Of course not all the information is accurate, but I believe that a vast majority of it is true.

sigh... religion is different from cult.

How is that helping your argument though? Are you trying to tell me that the first Muslims were members of a cult and not of a religion? If so, then please do explain your answer.

More to the point, exactly how do you differentiate between what is religion and what is cult?

The tribal cult that sprung up after Mohammad's death, became a basis to the religion he instated throughout the empire.

"Religion" is the wrong word. The same Wiki article (which you first linked to) states that Abd-Al-Malik consolidated and extended the Muslim rule, in that particular empire, not the religion.

"Extending the Muslim rule" and "instating/establishing a religion" are not the same thing and you know that.

And, following the best roman practices, he must have incorporated a few elements from each area of the empire, so that all would feel like they belong to this new religion.

Which is, once again, pure conjecture. You haven't yet provided any historical material to support that claim.

And Mo getting godlike intel from an angel, memorizing all of it, recounting it all to this tribe, having those people go on recounting it to their descendents and those to their descendents, all the while they're in an ongoing war for territory, until someone remembers to gather all of them and write it down for posterity.... and what was written was verbatim what the angel told Mo... that makes sense and is in accordance with everything we know of human nature...
Talk about grasping at straws... -.-'

I'm not saying that you have to believe any of this. But the debate here is particularly about which is the most historically consistent account of the origin of Islam as acknowledged in scholarly literature.

You wrote in the previous reply (emphasis mine):

As I said way up there... Abd Al-Malik was the guy who made it the "state religion"... the guy who made arabic the "state language"... the guy, most likely, had his scribes write the qur'an as a political tool, following the best practices of the romans when they took on the bible.

So again, what scholarly materials - or even oral traditions - can you show me which substantiate your claim that Abd-Al-Malik is the guy who ("most likely") had his scribes write the Quran?

Mere guesses and "most likely" do not constitute a historical account, in case you were thinking of using that again.