New Book: The Hidden Origins of Islam

[(Q)]

There are probably hundreds of thousands of men who think they "can handle multiple wives" and that they have a happy household of 3 or 4 women - all the while these guys don't realize that all of those women hate him and hate each other. So, he happily lives in a lie thinking he is "a man" and handling "his woman" only to die never loved by any of them. Sad.

It's very sad, Michael. Unfortunately, our misogynist friends here have yet to think about such things. They completely ignore that aspect of their arguments and their beliefs. It's part and parcel to living the pack of lies their religion offers them.

That aside, so, we've established that for some people it's moral to have up to 4 wives, how about 5 wives? What about women? Supposing a woman had an open relationship, where 4 other men truly wanted to all marry her and live together, is that moral?

It's a very good question, Michael. We see that our own species have evolved both our relationships and our morals, sometimes both in conflict with one another.

But, we can also turn to nature and see that other species are doing much the same thing without any of the morals that have evolved in us.

For example, a pride of lions would demonstrate the misogynist aspect while many other species choose lifelong mates.

 

[(Q)]

I expect an idiot to laugh.

وَعِبَادُ الرَّحْمَٰنِ الَّذِينَ يَمْشُونَ عَلَى الْأَرْضِ هَوْنًا وَإِذَا خَاطَبَهُمُ الْجَاهِلُونَ قَالُوا سَلَامًا

Uneducated in what, your psychotic religion? Islam is out there for all to see.

 

[Ja'far at-Tahir]

That aside, so, we've established that for some people it's moral to have up to 4 wives, how about 5 wives? What about women? Supposing a woman had an open relationship, where 4 other men truly wanted to all marry her and live together, is that moral?

How do you know this? This doesn't seem like a valid argument against polygamy given that it's a hypothetical situation created by you with a biased outcome that would support your own conclusion. It seems like casual oversimplification. Not to mention there is no reason why it should always be this case. If a man can indeed handle 4 wives and has all the means to do so and all 4 women are consenting and able to handle this situation then there is no reason why this relationship would fall into what you have described. Obviously polygamy isn't for everyone and again, monogamy is the standard within Islam however if there are some who want to engage in this sort of relationship, why shouldn't they have the freedom to do so? Shouldn't adults in a "free," society be able to choose whatever relationship they engage in? No relationship is perfect and if a polygamous relationship fails it suggests nothing other than the people involved are not suited for such a relationship or weren't at that specific time in their life and it doesn't suggest or say anything about the relationship as practiced by others.

 

[Ja'far at-Tahir]

Uneducated in what, your psychotic religion? Islam is out there for all to see.

Agreed, to bad all you can see is the inside of your rectum.

 

[scifes]

scifes, you gave a list of names but didn't provide any of the information I asked. For all I know this is a list of names you pulled out of your Sunday Bible study class.

-it's not in your well-being to push me to search for the list and bring it back up michael.
-i cited my reference.
-since you forgot all about my list of evidence you so cried about, it makes sense for you to forget about it's reference.
-muslims don't have sunday bible study classes, could you at least pay attention to such minor details when you recall your attempted witticisms(+ attempted arguments) from memory? one i hope is your own?

Lets make it easy. Simply list one of the authors of the Qur'an, exactly which sections he wrote, the date he wrote down each of those sections (hell even one of those sections) and a Journal reference where this information can be verified by orthographers in the field.

I'll be waiting on the evidence.

Interestingly, as we look closer and closer at the actual archeological evidence, we see these are simply myths.

michael, i'm sure you wouldn't see it if you buried your face in it, look;
-archaeological evidence isn't the only type of evidence on the face of the earth. and its absence isn't ground enough to claim something a myth, please name the fallacy for doing so.
-even if archaeological evidence existed you wouldn't know about it.
even if you knew about it(like for example a certain member on the forum who happens to be talking to you right now told you that he saw the prophet's grave by his own eyes more than once and that throughout history it was attempted to be stolen), you wouldn't listen, like how you're doing now.......dee-you-ache.
-even if you were somehow made to see that the archaeological evidence exist, you'de argue that that isn't enough evidence for you, same way you discarded other evidences and came here to archeology...
-..or wait, you could and would just go back to the beginning, and say there is no archaeological evidence! btw, have you seen the movie Memento?

No different than any of the other Gods and Goddess.

hmm, you researched them too?
no coins with zeus or thor on them?
or is passing on baseless assertions a habit of yours now?

Sure, you can happily keep living your life worshipping whatever Gods you were taught as a child to believe in.

or denying them.

There's nothing wrong with that.

for me, yes.
for you, no.

Hell, worship Xenu, millions of people do.

but allah has a BILLION!..surly he is better?

However, if you want to post, back it up with evidence.

As it stands, the coin posted clearly indicates that the word Mohammad was used as a title for Jesus. See, that's a fact Scifes, we have the coin. Now, ask yourself Scifes, how do you suppose all those Bible stories got into the Qur'an? Oh, er, um.... Magical angels floated from da clouds Georgie, and Mohammad road a winged horsey Georgie, and magic and Harry Potter and a Perfect Book *poof* Georgie ....
OR, now I know this is really way out there, I mean WAY WAY WAAAAAAAY out there: Islam developed out of Christianity.

OR, and i know this is absolutely unexpected and isn't the simplest and most reasonable explanation to it, and i'm sure nobody have yet told you about it 10 times already...wait a sec, if you're asking me after they answered you, then why would i repeat their mistake? georgie doesn't learn, georgie doesn't listen, georgie keeps repeating himself over and over.



and over.

Just like Judaism grew out of Canaanite myths.
Buddhism came from Hinduism.
Mormonism came from Christianity.
Roman Gods came from Greek Gods.
Bahai' came from Islam.

Islam came from Christianity - that's why the Qur'an is 80% Biblical stories.

my you're so smart, now i'm convinced! i can't see any other way, any other explanation! georgie, you are a genius!

Ohhhh, but you have a different theory? What would that be Scifes? Let me guess "Magic" and "Harry Potter" and "Allah' and "Flying Brooms...errr Horses".... I won't say you're sad, just simple.

me?
have a different theory?
why, is there even a theory out there other than yours?is that even archaeologically possible?-apart from the one repeated to you 10 times by different members-

Oh, and Scifes, perhaps I missed it, but, you didn't post the day the World's ONLY Perfect book was completed. What day was that again? Oh, hell, how about just posting the year (you can usually find these on the inside cover LOL) include cited reference.

ahh, "sad" doesn't cut it, you asked me this before and i answered you, but since it doesn't require of me more than some keyboard strokes, it was " 'am al-wada' ", the last year in the prophet's life, in his first and last pilgrimage, if i remember correctly at the day of arafah, which would be the 9th day of the twelfth hijri month, conversion is easy. the verse was-out of memory and translated on the fly-:"today i perfected your religion and on you my blessings are complete and have chosen islam as your religion", pretty roughly of course.
i'm pretty sure you'd find this easily on the internet, real easy, not like the list i mined for, but georgie doesn't know anything, and he doesn't care to know, but likes to display his story telling talents in matters he knows squat about, and when others care to try and make him know, he turns away and relentlessly starts another inane story.. as i said,.."sad".., just doesn't cut it.

 

[Michael]

How do you know this?

How do I know what? How do I know that women can happily marry multiple husbands? I know this because its been a part of the Tibetan culture for millennial ....and, I happen to know Tibetans. It's a part of their tradition that a women take multiple husbands because it conserves land and resources and reduces the numbers of children. If humans keep breeding like the rats they are, probably this will become western culture as well - either that or Japanese geeks will achieve their dream of android sexual partners Ghost in the Shell style.

Why? Do you have a problem with Tibetan cultural? Or are we talking about two different topics?

This doesn't seem like a valid argument against polygamy given that it's a hypothetical situation created by you with a biased outcome that would support your own conclusion.

That's probably because I'm not arguing against polygamy. I'm making the argument against polygamy ONLY. My argument is that if multiple partners are permitted for MEN then it should be legal and socially acceptable and not a religious taboo for women to ALSO have multiple partners. Equal.

I'm sure there's a lot of happy people out there in all sorts of relationships.

I'd also like to say puulease, YOU'RE arguing AGAINST a hypothetical situation?!?!? Ja'far, you're a Muslim who believes in a hypothetical Allah, hypothetical Mohammad and hypothetically "perfect" Qur'an. You don't seem to have a hard time basing your life's meaning and entire existence around hypothetical situations - I'm sure you can address this question.

NOTE: Unless the Gods or Xenu stopped by today, it's pretty hard to have a conversation about them without bringing out a hypothetical or two

Shouldn't adults in a "free," society be able to choose whatever relationship they engage in? No relationship is perfect and if a polygamous relationship fails it suggests nothing other than the people involved are not suited for such a relationship or weren't at that specific time in their life and it doesn't suggest or say anything about the relationship as practiced by others.

OK, now I'm sure we're addressing different questions here.



I'm asking two pretty simple questions:

- Is it moral for women to have multiple husbands?

- Is it moral for men to have 5 wives in a polygamous marriage?


I'm just asking your opinion. Nothing tricky here :shrug:

 

[Michael]

ahh, "sad" doesn't cut it, you asked me this before and i answered you, but since it doesn't require of me more than some keyboard strokes, it was " 'am al-wada' ", the last year in the prophet's life, in his first and last pilgrimage, if i remember correctly at the day of arafah, which would be the 9th day of the twelfth hijri month, conversion is easy. the verse was-out of memory and translated on the fly-:"today i perfected your religion and on you my blessings are complete and have chosen islam as your religion", pretty roughly of course.

Scifes, you do know people have "Peaces of the true Cross". Of course no one is allowed to test said peaces, but, hey, that never stopped a BILLION Catholics from thinking they exist.


Now, this is quite interesting, so Scifes know exactly the day that the Qur'an was completed. Very interested. I'll have to tell the Imam next time we meet - he'll be shocked you know and he doesn't. I guess he's an idiot. I'll let him know


We have actual recordings of Ron Hubbard babbling about Xenu. There's still as much good evidence for Xenu as Allah, which is exactly none.


Now, some of us are interested in the real history of Islam and the compilation that became the Qur'an. We are looking for a logical and rational reason the Qur'an is 80% "Biblical". One that doesn't involve magical broom rides to Jerusalem or spiting the moon in 3 peaces. Islam developing out of a Syrian Christian sect seems very reasonable and logical and accounts for a good deal of history.

 

[(Q)]

Obviously polygamy isn't for everyone and again, monogamy is the standard within Islam however if there are some who want to engage in this sort of relationship, why shouldn't they have the freedom to do so?

Hilarious. Lying for Allah, again? Men are allowed to have four wives but women are only allowed to have one husband.

And, he calls this "freedom" :bravo:

 

[Light Travelling]

Hilarious. Lying for Allah, again? Men are allowed to have four wives but women are only allowed to have one husband.

The historic reason for this is that one man can make a number of women pregnant, thereby producing numerous offspring and increasing the tribe / family.

Whereas the other way round however many men are present in a relationship with one woman, the end result is still only one child.

This is not evil just outdated..

 

[Michael]

The historic reason for this is that one man can make a number of women pregnant, thereby producing numerous offspring and increasing the tribe / family.

Whereas the other way round however many men are present in a relationship with one woman, the end result is still only one child.

This is not evil just outdated..

One would think God would take a look in the future and maybe mention something more about this?

I can't remember, was Buddha polygamous? And yet, south East Asia and China are so full of people :shrug:


Given that women and men are born at about statistically equal levels. 5o men for every 5o women. Though, as you said, one man can impregnate many woman. So what? Where does that leave the other men? Killing one another for the right to reproduce? In times of war there may be a short fall of men - although Romans, Greeks and Japanese were all war like and seem to get by? In times of peace women die in labor leaving more men and not enough women.


That's neither here nor there (well maybe, who knows what effects it may have on social progress?). As a morality issue its one for both the society and the individual.


Large apes and chimpanzees have tribes centered are polygamous alpha males. They're still at that level of social organization I suppose. The great alpha male in the sky and his alpha male prophet, Jim Jones, here on earth :shrug:

 

[Michael]

I thought this would go well with this thread: Miracles and Historical Method

The Rain Miracle of Marcus Aurelius.

In 172 C.E. a legion commanded by Marcus Aurelius was surrounded by barbarians somewhere in Eastern Europe. The soldiers, dying of thirst under the hot summer sun, pleaded with the gods for salvation. Clouds quickly filled the previously clear sky. Cool rain fell, and lightning struck down their enemies.

A few years later, the miracle was carved into stone in the Column of Marcus Aurelius, still visible today.

Only eight years after the event, Christian apologist Apollinarius claimed the legion was composed of Christians who prayed to their own god for help, and thus the miracle proved the deity of Christ. Seventeen years later, Christian apologist Tertullian claimed the same thing. But 25 years later, pagan historian Cassius Dio said it was the Egyptian wizard Harnouphis who summoned the god Hermes to rescue the legion.

So what really happened? How could we know?

We have no evidence that Christian prayers or Egyptian magic can call down rain or army-slaughtering precision lightning strikes. In contrast, we have ample evidence that natural causes could product the same result:

After all, rapidly-appearing and violent thunderstorms are a frequent occurrence in nature, especially in the summer months, while the human propensity to exaggerate is both infamous and ubiquitous. So we have much more reason to believe this was a natural event than a natural one.

But this does not mean, of course, that the legion was not made of Christians praying to Christ, or that it did not contain an Egyptian wizard who tried to summon help by casting spells. Is there anything to be said about these claims?

Truly, it would be odd for a pagan emperor who persecuted Christians to allow any of them into his army, let alone fill an entire legion with them. Moreover, all legionaries were required to offer daily prayers to the pagan god Jupiter, protector of the legions. Besides, we just have no evidence there were any Christians in Aurelius’ legions.

Now what about the pagan historian’s tale?

An inscription found in Eastern Europe attests that an Egyptian sorcerer by the very name Harnouphis was traveling with the imperial legions at the time, and the coin minted by Aurelius [a few years after the event] specifically depicts the god Hermes standing in an Egyptian temple…

What we have discovered is one among many examples of Christian authors making up stories in the context of deliberately trying to persuade readers to convert.

But guess what? Centuries later, and throughout the Middle Ages, ignorant Christians celebrated the “Miracle of the Christian Legion.” The Christian apologists won the propaganda war, as they often did – despite the absurdity of their claim and the lack of evidence for it.

The pagan historian’s story about the Egyptian wizard is probably correct, but nobody paid attention to it.

Instead we have a legend springing up just eight years after the fact, when thousands of eye witnesses were surely still alive, when the government was already promoting its alternative account, when all the necessary records were available. And despite these seemingly unfavorable conditions, this legend beat out the truth.

(Those who read contemporary Christian apologists will notice the relevance of all this to the stubbornly obtuse arguments of those who defend the magical resurrection of Jesus.)

So the First Rule of Historical Method is this: Don’t believe everything you read! Humans are notorious liars, eager exaggerators, and happy to believe anything that affirms their pre-existing beliefs.


---------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLIONS of Christian believe and have believed over the last 2000 years the story of the Christian legion. But, the evidence is strong that, no, this was not the case.

The fact is we actually have the coins with inscriptions that show the word "Mohammad" is first being used as a Title for Jesus Christ. We know that most of the people (soon to be called "Arabs") would have belonged to various Syrian Christian sects, many of which steadfastly refused to believe Jesus was part of a Trinity. He was not God. THAT was a hugely debatable topic in early Christianity. We know that when the Qur'an finally is codified, it's mostly a Bible.

If you want to know the true history, you'll have to ditch your superstitions. Try and remember, even though BILLIONS of people truly believed the world was a flat square (until recently actually), it's not. If you're not going to be sceptically of your own belief then you're just running around looking for evidence a Roman legion prayed to a Christian God. Which means it's up to the scientists and archeologists to sort of the truth from the fantasy.




If you view Islam as a conservative branch of Christianity paradigm - things begin to make sense. Some of the most intolerant aspects of Islam, are the exact same intolerance found in ultra conservative Christianity. Sadly, the one redeeming aspect of Christianity, forgiveness, is the one thing Islam misses out on. Which just leaves a horribly conservative Christian dogma without the balance of forgiveness - a central tenant in even the most doggedly conservative Christians. What a horrible weight to carry tightly chained around the neck of Muslims. A lot of the problems occurring in Islamic countries today, can be explained by thinking of them as ultra-conservative Christian sects.



Lastly, note:
the coin minted by Aurelius [a few years after the event] specifically depicts the god Hermes standing in an Egyptian temple…

This is a strong peace of evidence that the Pagan story is closer to the truth. YET, even if it is, we certainly would not think "Egyptian Magic" is true. Even if there was a person, he performed some smoke and mirror magic, it rained, the explanation would be based on logic and rational ideas - not on Egyptian magic. In order to think about Islam in a likewise clear and concise manner, you have look past the smoke and mirrors. Something to think about.

 

[Michael]

Light Travelling,

What are your ideas on the morality of women to have multiple husbands? And do you think it is moral for men to have 5 wives in a polygamous marriage?

Just wondering,
Michael

 

[Ja'far at-Tahir]

Or are we talking about two different topics?

I was talking about the scenario that I quoted which is why I quoted and commented about it.

That's probably because I'm not arguing against polygamy. I'm making the argument against polygamy ONLY.

So you're not arguing against polygamy, you're arguing against polygamy only?

I'd also like to say puulease, YOU'RE arguing AGAINST a hypothetical situation?!?!? Ja'far, you're a Muslim who believes in a hypothetical Allah, hypothetical Mohammad and hypothetically "perfect" Qur'an. You don't seem to have a hard time basing your life's meaning and entire existence around hypothetical situations - I'm sure you can address this question.

Really? 'Hypothetical' Muhammad (saw), huh? Did you forget about, oh, I don't know, pages 4 and up? Do we really need to go over this again? Come on, you can say "hypothetical," God and "perfect," al-Qur'an to satisfy your juvenile Atheist urge to "insult," and slander religious belief but Muhammad (saw)? No, not only that but none of this has anything to do with what I said.

- Is it moral for women to have multiple husbands?

No, this isn't permissible.

- Is it moral for men to have 5 wives in a polygamous marriage?

Yes, this is permissible however Islam conditionally accepts polygamy.

 

[Michael]

No, this isn't permissible.

You've switched the word to permissible. Which is to say is permissible under Islam. I already know the answer to that question. It should be noted it IS permissible under Tibetan Buddhism.

Now, I want to be clear here. I'm not asking if you think it's permissible. I want to know if you think women taking multiple husbands is moral or immoral? I'm asking about your moral stance on the matter. I would like to know WHY you think it is immoral or moral as well. Actually, I'm more curious as to the why.

Yes, this is permissible however Islam conditionally accepts polygamy.

So, I take it you think it IS moral for some men to practice polygamy. Is that correct?


Also, I was under the impression that Qur'an says a man can only have up to 4 wives. You think it is moral for a man to have more than 4 wives? A man taking 5 wives is moral? Is there an upper limit - or is it as many as man can fairly "handle"?

 

[Michael]

Really? 'Hypothetical' Muhammad (saw), huh? Did you forget about, oh, I don't know, pages 4 and up? Do we really need to go over this again? Come on, you can say "hypothetical," God and "perfect," al-Qur'an to satisfy your juvenile Atheist urge to "insult," and slander religious belief but Muhammad (saw)? No, not only that but none of this has anything to do with what I said

Did you post contemporary evidence of Mohammad's existence that has been published in a peer reviewed scientific journal?

Post the Journal citation and I'll read it. I don't recall you posting a single Journal citation. Yes, you posted a lot of links to an Islamic apologist website. I read those links. I didn't see anything from a scientific journal. Considering we're talking about archeology - it is or isn't in existence. While websites are interesting, they are not peer reviewed and are usually just opinions of an apologist.


Post the Journal citation if you have it.

 

[Ja'far at-Tahir]

You've switched the word to permissible.

Is there really any difference? You asked whether or not it was "moral," for X to happen and I assume essentially what you're asking is whether or not it's right or wrong within Islam thus I said it is or is not permissible in Islam. I am not switching anything you're just playing the semantics game.

It should be noted it IS permissible under Tibetan Buddhism.

Point being? Jews drink alcohol however in Islam this isn't permissible. If non-Musilms want their booze and gambling parlors, then you can have them. I am only commenting on what is haram and what is halal within Islam. I am very aware that practices which are haram in Islam are practiced without comment elsewhere however this means little if nothing to me.

Now, I want to be clear here. I'm not asking if you think it's permissible. I want to know if you think women taking multiple husbands is moral or immoral?

This is semantics. Let's not be silly here, you're basically whether it's right or wrong, permissible or not permissible. Dressing it up and using ther term 'moral' and playing semantics is silly. You know what I am saying, so why do this? I have already answered both of your questions and will address the whys later however no, it's not right, moral, permissible, etc. for a woman to have multiple husbands and there have been many reasons as to why this has been so. For example, while nowadays we can test the paternity of a child during the time of the Prophet (saw) and the early ummah this wasn't so and if a woman has multiple husbands it would be difficult, if not totally impossible to determine whom was the father and this could complicate matters such as inheritance.

I will address this issue more properly later.

 

[Ja'far at-Tahir]

Post the Journal citation if you have it.

I already did post evidence which has been accepted and cited by academic journals. Is your memory really this bad? Or is this you're only argument? Again, I ask, do we really have to have this entire conversation again or can you not just flip back to previous pages? If you don't believe, I will be happy to post all of this again with the Journal citations. I honestly don't understand why this belief that Muhammad (saw) was (God forbid) "fictional," or whatever. I mean it is possible for an Atheist to believe that the historical Muhammad (saw) did in fact exist without believing in his message, you know. I honestly don't know why you're pushing this assertion so fervently.

 

[scifes]

Did you post contemporary evidence of Mohammad's existence that has been published in a peer reviewed scientific journal?

is there one for your mother?

 

[Michael]

Is there really any difference? You asked whether or not it was "moral," for X to happen and I assume essentially what you're asking is whether or not it's right or wrong within Islam thus I said it is or is not permissible in Islam. I am not switching anything you're just playing the semantics game.

Point being? Jews drink alcohol however in Islam this isn't permissible. If non-Musilms want their booze and gambling parlors, then you can have them. I am only commenting on what is haram and what is halal within Islam. I am very aware that practices which are haram in Islam are practiced without comment elsewhere however this means little if nothing to me.

This is semantics. Let's not be silly here, you're basically whether it's right or wrong, permissible or not permissible. Dressing it up and using ther term 'moral' and playing semantics is silly. You know what I am saying, so why do this? I have already answered both of your questions and will address the whys later however no, it's not right, moral, permissible, etc. for a woman to have multiple husbands and there have been many reasons as to why this has been so. For example, while nowadays we can test the paternity of a child during the time of the Prophet (saw) and the early ummah this wasn't so and if a woman has multiple husbands it would be difficult, if not totally impossible to determine whom was the father and this could complicate matters such as inheritance.

You seem to be changing your song and dance. Before you wrote this: There is nothing inherently wrong with polygamy.

Here you're not mentioning anything about "permissible in Islam" or specifically referring to Muslims. You're talking about the inherent wrongness or rightness of polygamy as it is practiced anywhere. At least that's what you seem to say? See, earlier when you said two consenting adults, I noticed you didn't say two consenting Muslim adults.

If not you'd say: Polygamy is moral for Muslims but may be immoral for non-Muslims. Is THAT what you are NOW saying?

So, when I ask you this: If a Tibetan women takes two or more husbands, is that moral or immoral?
Your answer is now that it is moral... for Buddhist Tibetans.

So all this talk of DNA tests, paternal lineage, family conflict - none of these mater squat to a Tibetan Buddhist as they get on fine. I think that's now cleared up. It is moral for some women to take multiple husbands.



Now, that does leave Muslims women. Why is it that for Muslim women it is not moral? I mean, suppose a Muslim woman thought it was moral and she wanted two husbands? Then, for her, is it moral? Can you make a morality call for HER? She is a "consenting adult" as you said earlier.

I already did post evidence which has been accepted and cited by academic journals. Is your memory really this bad? Or is this you're only argument? Again, I ask, do we really have to have this entire conversation again or can you not just flip back to previous pages? If you don't believe, I will be happy to post all of this again with the Journal citations. I honestly don't understand why this belief that Muhammad (saw) was (God forbid) "fictional," or whatever. I mean it is possible for an Atheist to believe that the historical Muhammad (saw) did in fact exist without believing in his message, you know. I honestly don't know why you're pushing this assertion so fervently.

I looked for a link to a Journal. It's simply not there. I mean, I actually posted a book as well as a I posted a Journal citation for YOUR coin.

 

[Michael]

Here's a website SAM posted once.
What do we actually know about Mohammed?
By Patricia Crone, 10 June 2008 (who does think Mohammad existed historically).

Where was the archeological evidence in 2008?
(1) a Greek text written during the Arab invasion of Syria between 632 and 634 mentions that "a false prophet has appeared among the Saracens" and dismisses him as an impostor on the ground that prophets do not come "with sword and chariot". It thus conveys the impression that he was actually leading the invasions.

[this text doesn't name Mohammad - only an anonymous "false prophet"]

(2) an Armenian document probably written shortly after 661 identifies him by name and gives a recognisable account of his monotheist preaching.

(3) on Arabic coins and inscriptions, and in papyri and other documentary evidence in the language, Mohammed only appears in the 680s, some fifty years after his death (whatever its exact date).

click here
Date: 695 C.E.

click here
Date: 695 C.E.

Here, check out these links:
click here
click here

From post #58. These do not link a Journal.

click here
click here

click here

The fire altar is a clear Zoroastrian icon. Fire-altars play in an important role in the Zoroastrian faith and they were also refered to by Muslim authors as "fire-worshippers," so the reference is obvious.

What about this?

click here

click here

Dome of the Rock?

click here

click here

click here

What about this?

click here

click here

click here

click here

click here

click here

Post #112
All of these link an Islamic apologist website. None link a peer reviewed Journal article.





If you want to know the real history behind the evolution of Islam stay tuned because you're living during the ideal time to find out.

--


Archaeologists can date coins, and if they can discover who minted the coin, they can, ascertain which religion was in ascendancy at that date. We have coins which are stamped with crosses indicating that the ruler is a Christian. Simple so far hey? These coins are also stamped with the word Muhammad. IOW, Muhammad, was a term Christian rulers were using, on their coins, to assert their authority.

The word 'Muhammad' first appears on coins in Syria bearing Christian iconography. In this context the name is used as an honorific meaning 'revered' or 'praiseworthy' and can only refer to Jesus Christ, as Christianity was the predominant religion of the area at this time. This same reference exists in the building inscription of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem,

You may find the history of Nestorian Christians to be very enlightening. Syrian Christians didn't think of Jesus as the Son of God as in a Trinity. They used this to delineate themselves from Byzantine AND Persian rule and consolidate their own power in Syria.

Check this out:
“And do not tell anything but the truth about God. For the Messiah Jesus, son of Mary, (is) the messenger of God and his Word (logos), (which) he infused into Mary along with His spirit (lit.:Spirit from him). So, believe in God and his messengers, and do not say “three”; cease (doing) that (it would be) better for you. For (verily) God is a unique God...”

Makes sense huh? I mean, there's a lot more to it than that, but you get the gist. Oh, by the way, that's the inscription from the dome of the rock. Remember that when you read "Mohammad", it's being used as a Title.


Judaism evolved from Canaanite polytheism.
Buddhism evolved from Hinduism.
Christianity evolved from Judaism.
Mormonism evolved from Christianity.
Bahai' evolved from Islam.

Islam evolved from Syrian Nestorian Christianity.


Mohammad was a Title for Christ. This is a FACT we have the coins. In other words, originally, Jesus was Muhammad. Archaeologists have discovered a coin inscribed with the word, Muhammad, and two crosses. The crosses identify the ruler as a Christian who ruled under Jesus, who was Muhammad (praised/chosen).

You obviously know Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan the 5th Umayyad Caliph. He personally used the motto muhammad frequently.


Muawiyah I choose Damascus as his residence and made himself the protector of the tomb of John the Baptist. Many of his coins have pictures of a lamb, the contemporary symbol for John the Baptist, the lamb of God. The word, Zion, appears on some of Mu’awiya’s coins in Palestine, indicating that he viewed himself as an heir of the traditions of Israel.



So, Syrian Christian worshiped Mohammad Jesus. While you may say Allah is the only God, in practice I notice that Muslims treat Mohammad, exactly like these earlier Christians must have treat Muhammad Jesus. When Muslims hear "Muhammad's" voice in their minds' eye reading the Qur'an, it is as if they hear "God’s voice". Because Mohammad is just a conduit for God. Muslims might not be able to see "God" to directly follow his example, but they can look to Muhammad as the perfect example. It's as if "Mohammad’s" life is God’s life, and Mohammad's actions are God’s actions.

I'd say it's almost impossible for Christians to idealize Jesus any more than Muslims idealize Mohammad.

Through evolution of belief Muslims’ Christology is different in theory to Christians, but in practice, Muslims’ submission to Mohammad is identical to Christians’ submission to Jesus. It's not uncommon for Muslims to call out to Mohammad to save them in times of trouble. It's so common I hear it on the news now and again when they're interviewing Muslims after a terrorist event or tsunami etc....


Basically, Muslims are conservative Christians. Or where initially.



Now, what's interesting is trying to find out the history. If anything, as Muslims and Christians become more secular, this can be a commonly shared past. A connection other than war and colonization on post sides. One could say it may be a good thing.