Go to Naut's View
- Add a comment
- Go to Naut on Religion…XXIX (Islam), Partial Response to Ciel...
Corbin
Thanks for the info. I have a couple of works by Ibn-Warraq, (Why I am not a Muslim, and What the Koran Really Says) and I also have been reading Robert Spencer (The Truth about Mohammed), Gregory Davis. (Religion of Peace?), and Ed Husain, (The Islamist). I have another Ibn-Warraq (The Quest...etc) on order, as well as the al-Rawandi. I haven’t read the others, but the Crone and the Newby definitely look particularly interesting.
Now, in the most general sense, I am quite aware of the fact that the Muhammad of the Koran and the Hadith is a kind of ‘pastiche’, which may not at all correspond to the ‘real’ M. I would argue, however, that the influences that shaped these scriptures were acting on the various men who compiled them (and who in doing so also ‘concretized’ the main protagonist, Muhammad) in the same way as they would have acted on Mohammed-as-the-sole-author, as indeed he is seen by most Muslims.
If this were a book, these issues would definitely have to be addressed. But it’s a post, or a series of posts, intended to convey what could be seen as an outline of a reasonable view of religion in general, and in addition a very cursory glance at the formation of a particular religion. Critical here is that, regardless of the specifics, there is absolutely no need to take recourse to any other-worldly explanations (the ‘Angel Gabriel’ conveying ‘God’s’ messages to M.) in order to understand it as what it is, a human ‘creation’ through and through.
posted by
Nautikos
on February 10, 2008 at 2:17 PM
| link to this | reply
Naut.......
Have you heard of the "Myth of Mecca"??? I found this article last week while in Florida
If you get a chance see if the Library has this work by Islamic historian, Al-Rawandi, I.M. Origins of Islam: A Critical Look at the Sources. Prometheus, 2000.
While there may well have been a historical individual named Ubu'l Kassim who was later entitled Mohammed ("The Praised One"), who raised followers and participated in the initiation of the Arab Conquest, he likely came from northeast Arabia in what is now southern Jordan. The deity that Ubu'l Kassim chose to follow was Allah, a contraction of al-Lah, the ancient Arab God of the Moon [note: which is why the symbol of Islam to this day is the crescent moon]. Ubu'l Kassim died, however, some years before the Arab Conquest was fully under way (the traditional date is 632). Al-Rawandi summarizes what then happened:
Once the Arabs had acquired an empire, a coherent religion was required in order to hold that empire together and legitimize their rule. In a process that involved a massive backreading of history, and in conformity to the available Jewish and Christian models, this meant they needed a revelation and a revealer - a Prophet - whose life could serve at once as a model for moral conduct and as a framework for the appearance of the revelation. Hence (Ubu'l Kassim was selected to be the Prophet), the Koran, the Hadith (Sayings of the Prophet), and the Sira were contrived and conjoined over a period of a couple of centuries. Topographically, after a century or so of Judaeo-Moslem monotheism centered on Jerusalem, in order to make Islam distinctively Arab … an inner Arabian biography of Mecca, Medina, the Quraysh, the Prophet and his Hegira (flight from Mecca to Medina alleged in 622, Year One in the Islamic calendar) was created as a purely literary artifact. An artifact, moreover, based not on faithful memories of real events, but on the fertile imaginations of Arab storytellers elaborating from allusive references in Koranic texts, the canonical text of the Koran not being fixed for nearly two centuries. (p.104)
Al-Rawandi concludes that the Sira, the life of Mohammed in Mecca and Medina, is a myth, a "baseless fiction." This is the conclusion of a substantial number of serious academic historians working in Islamic studies today. They include Mohammed Ibn al-Warraq, Mohammed Ibn al-Rawandi, John Wansbrough, Kenneth Cragg, Patricia Crone, Michael Cook, John Burton, Andrew Rippin, Julian Baldick, Gerald Hawting, and Suliman Bashear. Yet they and their research are virtually unknown.
Crone, P.M. Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam. Oxford, 1987.
Newby, G.D. The Making of the Last Prophet: A Reconstruction of the Earliest Biography of Mohammed. Columbia, 1989.
Wansbrough, J. Quranic Studies: Sources and Methods of Scriptural Interpretation. Oxford, 1977.
Warraq, I.M. The Quest for the Historical Muhammad. Prometheus, 2000.
posted by
Corbin_Dallas
on February 10, 2008 at 6:24 AM
| link to this | reply
Re: Very interesting stuff
Thanks, mryan. I don't quite agree that religion was 'invented' by man to bring him 'closer to God', but so what...
posted by
Nautikos
on February 7, 2008 at 10:20 AM
| link to this | reply
Re: I'm gonna have to ponder on the points you're making, Naut,
Take your time, Ciel...
posted by
Nautikos
on February 7, 2008 at 10:17 AM
| link to this | reply
Re: This is just terrific -- exactly the way
Thanks strat, I really appreciate your comment, and I'm sure Ciel does too...
posted by
Nautikos
on February 7, 2008 at 10:16 AM
| link to this | reply
Re: Nautikos & Ciel
That's okay, TAPS, we have no secrets our friends can't share...
posted by
Nautikos
on February 7, 2008 at 10:15 AM
| link to this | reply
Very interesting stuff
In my view, religion is an invention of man, for man, in order to bring him closer to God. Whether or not Jesus was really the Son of God, he summed the important stuff up nicely. Basically, love your friends and family, even your enemies (if you can manage that). Of course, I was raised Catholic, so my leanings would be toward Christianity, anyway.
I have serious problems with Mohammed. He is not a credible "prophet" to me, if for no other reason than the "Satanic Verses." These are the verses in the Koran which Mohammed claimed were from God in order to get his way. Later, when he wanted to do something else, and this action contradicted what he had initially said, he argued that the words came from Satan, not God. Basically, he claimed that Satan possessed him temporarily to produce these verses. The obvious point is that if Satan possessed him at that point in time, who's to say that Satan did not possess throughout the writing of the rest of the Koran?
posted by
mryan_author
on February 6, 2008 at 6:38 PM
| link to this | reply
I'm gonna have to ponder on the points you're making, Naut,
before responding to them, but in the meantime, thanks for posting this!
posted by
Ciel
on February 6, 2008 at 11:52 AM
| link to this | reply
This is just terrific -- exactly the way
differences of opinion and debate should be conducted. Thank you -- all of you involved in this discussion!
posted by
strat
on February 6, 2008 at 6:42 AM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos & Ciel
I felt as if I were eavesdropping on a private conversation.
posted by
TAPS.
on February 5, 2008 at 11:09 PM
| link to this | reply