It wasn't Mohammed who founded Islam.

[Newtonscat]

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.

[robvalue]

That's very interesting, thank you. I've not heard of that. I'm not nearly as familiar with the Quran as the bible, but I suspect there may be considerable doubt about whether Muhammad was a real person or not. (Obviously he didn't do the magic stuff.) Do you have an opinion on that?

I know lots more about xianity and I'm convinced that jesus is mainly mythical, but I don't know about fake-jesus so much.

[Lucanus]

Hi Newton and welcome.

I'm quite ignorant about islam too, so do you have any sources for what you are saying? It seems interesting.

[vorlon13]

Well, I'd still like to consider Muhammad a creepy pedophile, is that OK ??

[Minimalist]

What was he? Archbishop of Mecca?


This video is a primer to the book of the same name. The book is well worth reading.






Oddly, like jesus to xtianity, muhammed seems a late addition to the story.

[pocaracas]

Min... that's a lot of "absence of evidence"...

[Minimalist]

Just as there is no evidence of Martians invading the Ohio Valley in 1792.

Does not mean it happened.

[Raven]

Robert Spencer is not really someone worthy of paying any attention to unless your idea of a good news source is Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh.

ETA:http://www.splcenter.org/get%20informed/...%20Spencer

That's the entry for this guy at Southern Poverty Law Center Extremist Files

[watchamadoodle]

There is another author with a similar theory that looks more scholarly to me:
Karl-Heinz Ohlig has written several books. Here is one "Early Islam: A Critical Reconstruction Based on Contemporary Sources"
http://books.google.com/books/about/Earl...l_mwEACAAJ

Here is the wikipedia about the author:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl-Heinz_Ohlig

[Minimalist]

Robert Spencer is not really someone worthy of paying any attention to unless your idea of a good news source is Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh.

You see, the problem there is, having read the book, he cites actual evidence for his position and cites other scholars - some of whom have to write under pseudonyms so the 'moderates' don't kill them - for his conclusions.

It really is hard to explain why early "muslim" conquerors would have issued coins with crosses on them. Yet, they exist.