A dedication, Khalid Ibn walid One of the greatest Warriors who ever lived.

[S.A.M.]

Of course Alexander III minted many coins during his lifetime (which if he existed

Lol I stopped right there. Oh well, this thread is over

Meanwhile acc to your criteria, Alexander did exist because the Indians wrote about him

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Porus

Also Mohammed because his companions built a mosque in India and an Indian king converted to Islam based on what he heard of him

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheraman_Juma_Masjid

Malik ibn Deenar, a well known companion of Muhammad, led a small group of 13 companions to the ancient port of Musuris in Malabar in 629 A.D.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_India#History_of_Islam_in_India

The others, up in the air, pending Indian sources that proclaim their existence

I never realised how much of "history" is only from the western point of view. I wonder how much we have lost of it in Baghdad, the oldest libraries in the world. And how much is lying around in the dusty tomes of the Asiatic society

@NCDane:

Thanks for all the links and info. I've always wondered how the Arabs did it - 100 years is so short a time for them to be fighting such large and well trained armies -Persian, Byzantine, Egyptian - to do so successfully, in such terrain over the entire expanse of the Middle East - so that their influence has become a permanent one - it would have been interesting to know the details of their strategies.

 

[Michael]

You have got to be kidding me. There's NO contemporary account or coinage of Khalid Ibn walid? Really?

.... Really?

While the Mohammad protagonist being fiction (like other mythical figures) is pretty much a given, I would have expected something of Khalid Ibn walid?


Not a single coin minted??? I really didn't expect that. But, I can't really say I'm at all surprised.

Zero contemporary evidence for Mohammad and, as it stands, zero for Khalid Ibn walid. That is very interesting. I suppose this thread did end up being at least a little informative.


The Qur'an is a Bible. If you understand the humongous variety of early Christianity you'll agree, the Qur'an is another Bible from another Christian sect. Which is why it contains all the Biblical stories only slightly different then the Bible Christians just so happen to use today. Things could have just as easily been reversed. Or altogether different. Unless you're going to suspend all rational thought and start believing in magical winged fairy rides and moons splitting into two pieces, well, you have to admit much of the foundation myth for Islam is exactly that - Myth.

 

[S.A.M.]

The way I see it - you don't need coins and artifacts to commemorate Ibn Walid - he was just a general in the grand scheme of things

He has a legacy which only Cesar will possibly recognise and which both Genghis Khan and Alexander would envy,

All you need to confirm Ibn Walid's existence and success is take a dekko at the Arabic speaking world. Thats a permanent legacy - I don't think Khalid Ibn Walid would mind if he sank anonymously into history either - because it will make little or no difference to what he achieved. People may not remember who did it but they cannot deny that it happened.

 

[Michael]

Also Mohammed because his companions built a mosque in India and an Indian king converted to Islam based on what he heard of him

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheraman_Juma_Masjid

LOL, yes SAM, while there is no contemporary evidence of Mohammad having existed to be found anywhere in the Arabia, where he was purported to live, BUT alas! Over in India... there's oil in them thar hills.

Firstly, bantering the word "Western" around does not change facts. That's a logical fallacy appealing to bigotry. It'd be no different than someone saying: That an Indian medicinal, surely it doesn't do anything - it's Indian. This is the appeal you make to people when you say "Western". Facts are Facts regardless of where they originate.

As it stands there is no contemporary evidence for Mohammad. I'm still waiting to see if ANYONE can find at least a coin minted in Khalid's name. I thought that would have been easily found and we'd be discussing the battles. Little did I know Khalid himself is mythical. That's not unreasonable, but, I didn't think that'd be the case. My own opinion was (and still somewhat is) that he was a Persian General who was later Arabized as the Islam foundation myth was being written later in the 8th century.


As for your link. Did you notice the citations at the end of WIKI?

- A mosque from a Hindu king was cited from "Travel India" tour guide page???
- An Interview with a Delhi-based "senior" journalist.
- The Bahrain tribune.
- The Hindu Newspaper.
- A column in Daily jang


Are you serious SAM? Has it come to this? You'll hang your hat on "Travel India"? I really don't know what to say other than Hail Xenu!

LOL.... Travel India... yippee.... Damn those "Westerners" and their coinsey-smoingsey! So what if they have coins from Qin Shi Huangdi, Alexander III, Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan... I have a copy of Travel India - I'm set! All Hail Xenu!


Get this: Professor A Sreedhara Menon also known as Alappat Sreedhara Menon,(18 December 1925 – 23 July 2010), is one of the most illustrious historians from Kerala and recipient of the Padma Bhushan for Literature & Education in 2009, India's third highest civilian honour seems to be of a different opinion:

The Cheraman legend is not corroborated by any contemporary record or evidence. None of the early or medieval travelers who visited Kerala has referred to it in their records. Thus Sulaiman, Al Biruni, Benjamin of Tuleda, Al Kazwini, Marco Polo, Friar Odoric, Friar Jordanus, Ibn Babuta, Abdur Razzak, Nicolo-Conti � none of these travelers speaks of the story of the Cheraman�s alleged conversion to Islam.

My Gods SAM, I can't believe it - asking for contemporary record or evidence... just who does this person think they are!?!? Haven't they read Travel India???

 

[Michael]

The way I see it - you don't need coins and artifacts to commemorate Ibn Walid - he was just a general in the grand scheme of things

He has a legacy which only Cesar will possibly recognise and which both Genghis Khan and Alexander would envy,

All you need to confirm Ibn Walid's existence and success is take a dekko at the Arabic speaking world. Thats a permanent legacy - I don't think Khalid Ibn Walid would mind if he sank anonymously into history either - because it will make little or no difference to what he achieved. People may not remember who did it but they cannot deny that it happened.

Greeks used to say the exact same things about Zeus.


If there is no contemporary coinage, then that is a bad sign.

What should we look for next? A contemporary statue? Inscription? I say either or.

 

[S.A.M.]

Greeks used to say the exact same things about Zeus.


If there is no contemporary coinage, then that is a bad sign.

What should we look for next? A contemporary statue? Inscription? I say either or.

There are reams of contemporaneous writings for those who are interested. But as a mulhid you're unlikely to be interested in them anyway although even you cannot deny the permanent nature of the Arab influence on the world. People like Chi are more likely to read and write on this subject. After all, even Americans are learning Arabic now.

 

[NCDane]

RE: Contemporary Evidence of Julius Caesar.

You know, this is actually a good idea.

Coins...

In Caesar’s case I was not questioning his existence, but the fact
that he conquered Gaul:

(from post #38)

there is no independent corroboration of such events as Caesar’s conquest of Gaul either

(from post #53)

Earlier I mentioned Caesar's Gallic conquest

I agree coins should be accepted as historical documentation
not only for Caesar but also for anyone else, including Alexander
and Ptolemy.

However, YOU still have a problem because you have clearly
suggested that corroboration is needed from all parties to a
historical event:

(from post #38, emphasis added)

Actually there were many battles from China to Egypt were we have the conqueror and conquered's writen records, going back 7000 years in some cases. Surely there would be some contemporary evidence from 1400 years ago?

…If people were conquered there would be records. Records from the people themselves as well as from those doing the conquering. I'm simply asking for those contemporary records

Now, before going any further I should say you have big job ahead
of you locating contemporary records for every conquered entity
going back 7000 years. Make that a hopeless job, and you would
be wise to withdraw the foolish premise altogether.

That aside, you will have to loosen your standards up quite a bit if
you are going to accept as solely adequate Roman contemporary
documentation for a Roman general’s foreign conquest, or for his
very existence.

Another thing: Googling indicates that the Arabs did not begin
to mint their own coins until the 680s, several decades after the
conquests of Mesopotamia, Syria, Iran and Egypt, and several
decades after the death of Khalid. That leaves Arab historiography
for any earlier time at a relative disadvantage compared to other
areas where coinage had been practiced for centuries.

However, since the new coins depict Arab language and Islamic
scripture you will have to accept that somehow about 1000000km^2
changed hands politically before the coinage change, and that the
nationality and religion of the new government may be unambiguously
identified. That is, unless you want to go back to the independent
corroboration mess, in which case you will have to bury poor old Caesar
yet again.

 

[S.A.M.]

How do you know Caesar is Julius Caesar? Caesar or as we say in India Kaiser, is a title used for any Emperor [Queen Victoria for example, is Kaiser e Hind] I believe it is a cognate to Czar

 

[Michael]

In Caesar’s case I was not questioning his existence, but the fact
that he conquered Gaul

Caesar had coins minted as propaganda of his wars in Gaul during his lifetime. Actually, almost all of his wars he used coins as propaganda - pretty much emulating Alexander who used coins in much the same way. Coins celebrating Caesar's invasion and subjugation of Gaul were minted in his lifetime and this is strong evidence that he invaded and subjugated Gaul.

Of course, I agree it may have been pure propaganda. Which is why we then go on to other lines of evidence. But, as I noted, coins are a good place to start as they are long lasting.

Now, before going any further I should say you have big job ahead of you locating contemporary records for every conquered entity going back 7000 years.

Here is what I said:

Actually there were many battles from China to Egypt were we have the conqueror and conquered's writen records, going back 7000 years in some cases. Surely there would be some contemporary evidence from 1400 years ago?

Clearer for you?

Another thing: Googling indicates that the Arabs did not begin to mint their own coins until the 680s, several decades after the conquests of Mesopotamia, Syria, Iran and Egypt, and several decades after the death of Khalid. That leaves Arab historiography for any earlier time at a relative disadvantage compared to other areas where coinage had been practiced for centuries.

Supposed death I might add.

OK, so there are no coins. What about marble inscription from that time period with references to Khalid? A stone bust? Any contemporary reference to Khalid at all?

However, since the new coins depict Arab language and Islamic scripture you will have to accept that somehow about 1000000km^2 changed hands politically before the coinage change, and that the nationality and religion of the new government may be unambiguously identified.

You should think about what "Islam" is. While some people, most notably SAM, see Islam as non-Western. IMO it is ALL Western. The mythology is closely modeled after the Bible. So much so I would refer to Islam as Christianity. In the past I thought of Islam as Arab monotheism. However, there were plenty of highly educated literate "Christian" Arab monotheists. Take the Gnostic Sethians as an example. If we went back in time to 400-500AD you'd find many Christian sects that are pretty identical to "Islam". They aren't called "Islam" they're called Christian sects. So, we need to stop thinking of Islam and Christianity as we do today and start thinking about Christianity as they did then. Islam is a sect of Christianity - which is why it's 80% identical to the Bible.

Christianity is GreccoRoman and very Western. So, Islam is based on Western culture of THAT time. Sure Islam may not seem so Western to Westerners now. But, my guess is Muslims would fit in better into 2nd century "Western" culture much better than modern so-called "Westerners". Monotheism has a stifling effect like that.


Some Persian Emperor's made "Christianity" the official religion of Persia, before reverting back to Zoroastrianism. Persians conquered and controlled Syria and Egypt many MANY times in history. I can easily envision a Persian General taking advantage of a new Christian religion (we'll call it "Islam") and retaking a couple main cities that Persians have controlled many time in the past with the help of Arab conscripts. Arabs works as mercenaries in England for the Roman's for Gods sake. There was a Roman Emperor who was Arab. This idea that Arabs were nomadic do nothings with zero influence is complete bullshit.

Anyway, THAT scenario seems rather plausible to me. Which is why I wonder where the coins are of Khalid? If they were not minted that suggests, to me, that Khalid did not exist.


When exactly did people start referring to themselves as "Muslims". When is "Islam" actually a culture? Certainly not in the proposed lifetime of Khalid. Something to think about. Also, the earliest use for the word Mohammad is as a Title for Christ. That was found on a Syrian coin. Something to think about. You wonder how "Islam" spread across the old Christian Empire? If you stop thinking of Islam as non-Western and remember it's a sect of Christianity - well, it's hardly surprising at all.




So, what other contemporary evidence is there for Khalid? Where's his tomb? What about stone inscriptions? Stone busts? Contemporary accounts of the battles themselves?

 

[Michael]

The coin below has a portrait is of the Sassanid King of Persia Khostau II. It carries on it the traditional Zoroastrian marking such as a fire alter and the star and crescent . Note how NOW the star and crescent is "Islamic". Isn't that interesting? See, this is how "religions" evolve. Recall Christianity was also the official religion of Persia for a time. If you think of Islam as a form of Christianity (which it was/is), then it's pretty easy to see a blending of Persian Zoroastrian with Christian symbolism that are now thought of as "Islamic".

What were the coins being minted and in use during the lifetime of Khalid? Coins were constantly being melted and re-issued with new propaganda. Surely there were coin mints in Persia, Syria and Egypt?










I said this in another thread once. It may be that all of the "Islamic Crusades" are fiction. Why does that bother people? Why do they need to have a bloody glorious Khalid? Wouldn't it be nice if the real history, at least initial history, that a type of Gnostic Christianity fell into favor due to it's kindness and appeal? And, like all religions, was co-opted later by the State, a foundation myth laid, a religious book codified and cannanized and only then did it turn violent. Perhaps, initially, this form of Christianity was gentle and kind - true to core Christian values.


Ahh not as fun as blood and gut is it? Nope. People do not seem to be naturally "religious" or at least Christian. Christianity's turn the other cheek doesn't seem to come naturally. They're much more violent and need that release I suppose - perhaps in their foundation mythologies? Hence:
Come One Come ALL!
See the Amazing Khalid.
One of the World's Greatest Warriors!

A caricature of the man, if one indeed existed.

 

[Michael]

How do you know Caesar is Julius Caesar? Caesar or as we say in India Kaiser, is a title used for any Emperor [Queen Victoria for example, is Kaiser e Hind] I believe it is a cognate to Czar

The evidence suggests Octavian/Augustus deified Caesar (thus by extension made himself God-like) and supported a cult of Caesar. Some people suggest that the Cult Caesar morphed into what we now consider Christianity. It is Roman after all.

The name Caesar of a man was minted onto coins and later became a Title. Much like the word Mohammad was minted onto coins as a title for Jesus and later became a Man. Ideas are fluid like that.

Anyway, Julius was the family name. That was the more important name during his lifetime. Being a Julius meant he had a right to a seat in the Senate by blood (and was descendant of a God).

 

[Michael]

There are reams of contemporaneous writings for those who are interested. But as a mulhid you're unlikely to be interested in them anyway although even you cannot deny the permanent nature of the Arab influence on the world. People like Chi are more likely to read and write on this subject. After all, even Americans are learning Arabic now.

Then why don't you do the thread a favor and post one of these contemporary writings so that we can examine it? I doubt it'd be in "Arabic" though. I'd think Syriac, Armenian, Latin or Greek. But, whatever, so long as it's contemporary we can have a look and get this thread moving forward in regards to the real history of the time period.

 

[S.A.M.]

Then why don't you do the thread a favor and post one of these contemporary writings so that we can examine it? I doubt it'd be in "Arabic" though. I'd think Syriac, Armenian, Latin or Greek. But, whatever, so long as it's contemporary we can have a look and get this thread moving forward in regards to the real history of the time period.

I think the one you might be interested in is "Kitab al-Tarikh wa al-Maghazi" ("Book of History and Campaigns") by Al Waqidi. Its the only surviving work of his and describes the campaigns of Mohammed collected from traditions after the campaigns ended - which is usually how wars were written about at the time. There are others but I am sure you can locate them from the link I provided. Waqidi has sourced his work and you can read his criticisms from other Arab writers who point out which parts of his works are not reliable. Waqidi was an Arab historian based in Medina. All of the early writings about Mohammed and his campaigns are from historians in the Najd, based in Mecca or Medina since they are the ones most likely to be interested in what their leaders were doing at the time. Most later writings - from Persia, Syria, Iraq, Egypt are based off these writings and are perspectives from the other side of the pond. Its like colonial history first from the point of view of the British and later from the POV of the Indians.

One of the things I like about Arab writings is that none of them take any work as unequivocally reliable, so you can read the criticisms of any work which whether correct or wrong, give you different perspectives on the same issue. I think Philip Khurri Hitti has written on this stuff although my knowledge is limited to Hourani's work

A short overview of early Muslim historians and their works
http://www.muslimheritage.com/uploads/acf2f43.pdf

 

[Michael]

Here's the problem. Al-Waqidi was born in 748 A.D. which is over a century from the death of Kahlid (if he existed).In Al-Waqidi's WIKI page it states:
al-Waqidi has been frequently criticized by Muslim writers, who claim that he is unreliable. Imam Shafi'i says that,"the books written by Al-Waqidi are nothing but heaps of lies".

One would expect if Kahlid were a real person, and of the stature attributed to him, so as to stand with other successful generals such as Qin Shi Huangdi, Alexander of Macedonia, Genghis Khan, Julius Caesar that there would be SOME contemporary evidence. I mean he supposed conquered all this land. How do you do that without leaving ANY evidence of your presence at all?

I'd say you can't. Like all great generals there'd be coins minted to finance the wars and pay solders, there'd be massive mobilization of resources and lists of food and supplies, there's be solders letters, letter from the people who were being conquered, letters from people who escaped to other cities, refuges, people talking about the refuges some of whom would be family members. Egypt would have had massive investments from Italians, Greeks, Byzantine, etc... if it happened as it is purported to have happened - there will be records of losses in Italy, Greece, Constantinople etc...

Where's the evidence.

If there is no evidence at all. I'd suggest things did not happen as they were reported to have happened.





Think about the thread title: A dedication, Khalid Ibn walid One of the greatest Warriors who ever lived. THAT is why Kahlid was invented or embellished. To give "Muslims" a Hero Myth. Exactly as the Greeks wrote in the Iliad. Note how NCDane makes the off handed comment Muslims probably treated their enemy much much better compared with non-Muslims. That's Classic Propaganda. In the Myths the Hero's are always like this. Kahlid probably has a tragedy near the peak of his greatness.


Anyway, I'm open to his having existed - if someone could provide ANY contemporary evidence.

 

[S.A.M.]

Al-Waqidi was born in 748 A.D. which is over a century from the death of Kahlid (if he existed).In Al-Waqidi's WIKI page it states:
al-Waqidi has been frequently criticized by Muslim writers, who claim that he is unreliable. Imam Shafi'i says that,"the books written by Al-Waqidi are nothing but heaps of lies".

Not surprising really, he was somewhat a stickler for details and omitted anything that seemed out of the realm of reality. So yeah there were probably a lot of writers [religious ones perhaps] not historians, who thought he sucked

He was born during the time when the Arab conquest was still ongoing though and he collected his accounts from people involved in the campaigns

One would expect if Kahlid were a real person, and of the stature attributed to him, so as to stand with other successful generals such as Qin Shi Huangdi, Alexander of Macedonia, Genghis Khan, Julius Caesar that there would be SOME contemporary evidence. I mean he supposed conquered all this land.

Anyway, I'm open to his having existed - if someone could provide ANY contemporary evidence.

I don't think its necessary for you to be open/closed to his having existed. You could easily substitute him with the alphabet X. i.e. X was one of the people responsible for the rapid Arab conquest of the Middle East leading to the permanent mark of Arab culture from Yemen to Spain and the spread of Islam to 20% of the world.

As we know even from present day history, what survives as historical record has very little relation to reality. I mean did the Greeks really write all those tomes or was it an artifact of the Arab imagination?

All those philosophers or commentators were known to the Arabs and some of their writings, sometimes lost in Greek, were translated into Arabic...

http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ip/rep/H011

How do we know those originals existed? Because they said so? Pfft! I'm sure you'll be careful to sift through the records and reject any that have no corroborating evidence. Clearly many of the so-called Greek philosophers could be nothing but a figment of the Arab imagination. And don't even get me started on all the stuff they wrote about Indian math and science. I mean seriously? Where is the fricking contemporaneous evidence? We all know when al Biruni was born and it was not in the Vedic times

How do you do that without leaving ANY evidence of your presence at all?

Its easy enough, there were many instances when records were destroyed and the Arabs have never been much for permanence even though they have always been prolific writers - it must be the effect of living for so long as nomads. Can you think of one Arab artifact which represents a historical record?

 

[Michael]

It's highly unlikely Aristotle was a figment of 'Arab' imagination given the numerous references made by Greeks and Italians prior to what you are referring to as Arab culture.

It's really a matter of wanting to understand as best as the evidence allows for what happened during that time period.

For example, even here you refer to the 'Arabs' preserving some Greek knowledge. However, it was the Persian Emperor Khosrau I who did the preserving. He was the one who personally accepted refugees from the Eastern Roman Empire when that dick-face Justinian I closed the neo-Platonist schools in Athens in 529. Khosrau's the reason why Greek knowledge was saved - not some nondescript 'Arabs' (whom ever they are). He was the one given the title “Plato's Philosopher King” by the Greek refugees and he was the person who encouraged an interest in Platonic philosophy. He build a massive library for Greeks to study and learn in. So, if you want to credit someone, then give credit to where credit is due.


It's like you're so wrapped up in Islamic mythology you have absolutely no idea or interest in the real history of the 6-7th century CE. I suppose some people prefer to live life believing fantasy stories instead of trying to learn the real History?

It's fine to study 8th century Arab historians - just know that much of what you're reading as 'History' was completely made up for Religious/Political purposes.

From WIKI:
Khosrau I laid the foundations of many cities and opulent palaces, and oversaw the repair of trade roads as well as the building of numerous bridges and dams. During Khosrau I's ambitious reign, art and science flourished in Persia and the Sassanid Empire reached its peak of glory and prosperity.


He reformed the Military and He reformed the Law and it was he who fought against the Byzantium Empire.

Not surprisingly we have coins minted during his rule:

There's plenty of contemporary evidence for the existence of Khosrau I, Alexander III, Qin Shi Huangdi, Genghis Khan, Julius Caesar. Is there ANY contemporary evidence that Kahlid exited at all? What cities did he found?

If there's ZERO contemporary evidence then it's more than likely he was completely made up in the style of a Greek Hero myth. I think if that's the case, we should acknowledge that and try to find out what REALLY happened during that time period.

Who were the other main 'Arab' leaders of the time? Who else could have lead all these armies in battle... if such a thing actually happened.



- We now have actual minted coin contemporary evidence of the word Mohammad being used as a title of Jesus.
- We have evidence of Christians and other Gnostic sects that have identical beliefs to Islam from 100s of year before the supposed existence of Mohammad.
- We have ample evidence of Persian rulers taking Persia to the height of it's prosperity in the 6th century.
- We have ZERO contemporary evidence of Khalid having ever existed.



What we do know is that for some reason there was also a large number of Byzantine Cities whose economies were collapsing. Maybe there was a plague? Maybe Arab nomads simple moved into depopulated cities following a devastating epidemic? The reason why you can't find any contemporary evidence of Khalid may be because he was completely made up so 'Arabs' could take credit for Khosrau I.

WHY was Ctesiphon, the imperial capital of the Persian Sassanids abandoned and Baghdad built 30 miles north? WHO built Baghdad? I can tell you it probably wasn't Arab Nomads. Supposedly they even had to pay Christian engineers to drain Mecca of swap water, that's how little knowledge nomads have of building cities. Who paid for this city being built? How did 'Arabs' come to find themselves in charge of it?

 

[Michael]

Plague of Justinian

The actual number of deaths will always be uncertain. Modern scholars believe that the plague killed up to 5,000 people per day in Constantinople at the peak of the pandemic. It ultimately killed perhaps 40% of the city's inhabitants. The initial plague went on to destroy up to a quarter of the human population of the eastern Mediterranean New, frequent waves of the plague continued to strike throughout the 6th, 7th and 8th centuries AD, often more localized and less virulent. It is estimated that the Plague of Justinian killed as many as 100 million people across the world. Josiah C. Russell suggested a total European population loss of 50% to 60% between 541 and 700.

One wonders what happened to people in the Persian cities? It was considered the worse plague up until the Black Death. Plagues have an immediate effect on people's superstitious beliefs, often lasting with repercussions for generations to centuries (the Black Death happened in the 14th century and was followed by the Renaissance in the 14-17 centuries). Clever and ambitious people use such times to catapult to positions of rule - espeacially ambitious religious people as they're often sought out for help.

 

[Michael]

Plague and the End of Antiquity: The Pandemic of 541-750

Recounts the world's first major plague pandemics which devastated cities between 541-750 CE. Right during the supposed "Glorious" conquest of Persia and Syria there was a plague wiping out up to 60% or more of inhabitants of major cities. Nomads were apparently spared the plague due to their not living in these diseased cities.

The one that supposedly devastated Iraq was referred to as the Plague of Sharawaygh and it took the life of the Persian Emperor along with many inhabitants Ctesiphone, the Persian Capitol city in the year 628. I think this may be around the same year Khalid fought his first primary battle? If he existed - which I am no where convinced of.

One wonders what role these devastating plagues played in the eventual evolution of a Christian sec developing into what people today think of as Islam and the creation of a foundation myth nearly a hundred years later. Lots of interesting things happening around this time.

 

[S.A.M.]

Good point about the plague. It could be that the singular advantage of the Arabs over the Byzantinians was hygiene. Christianity was apparently opposed to sanitation and bathing [see etymology of "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" ewww], so the Arab practice of 5x wudu and taharat would have been an advantage in the times.

 

[Michael]

The idea that Jesus was fictional, certainly doesn't cause me to value Western culture any less.
Something you may want to deal with in regards to your own myths. Because the more time you spend looking into early Islam, the more you have to face facts - like Jesus, Mohammad was mythical.


That aside, the plague affected people living in cities all over the Old World, including Arabs. Live in a city, die of the plague. Which is why I said nomadic Arabs. Although, I'm not sure they were "Arab" as you are probably thinking Arab. But, to be fair, we should say nomads. Probably the Mongolians were spared.





In regards to the thread: During the lifetime of Kahlid, is there ANY contemporary peer reviewed evidence that suggests ANY major figure in Islamic mythology existed?



Is it really all that shocking to find out that none of the Greek Gods, Godesses and Heros were actual people? To learn Zeus didn't really fight the Titans - is that REALLY shocking? It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone living in the modern age, that Mohammad did not ride a fairy creature up to the firmament and did not split the moon into two pieces. These are called myths. Foundation myths are a part of all societies. We have the Syrian coin with the word Mohammad on it being used as a Title for Christ. It's the ONLY contemporary evidence of Mohammad's existence - and it's as a TITLE for CHRIST. So, Mohammad did exist, as a word. The coin is real. You can touch it. 8th century religious propaganda, otherwise known as Islam, OTOH proffers no such evidence. We therefor deduce that Islam is based in myth just like all other superstitions around the world. There is nothing unique or shocking here. You know the Titans did not really exist. There is no intergalactic space alien warlord, no giant frog guards the book of Mormon, the moon never split into two pieces, and Khalid probably did not exist.