flamingjimmy Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 things that were obvious, jimmy, such as him going on about no written proof being found, from the time of Mohammed... had he researched it correctly, he would have known that it was a mainly oralist society, so things were written down infrequently.What EbonyBranch said. The whole point is that there's apparently no written proof, that's what he's bringing to light. I didn't know that, the documentary taught me that, I'm sure it informed others. The whole point was to to look for physical evidence of Muhammad's followers in the early years. Did you know that there was no physical evidence for the life of Muhammad until decades afterwards? I'd always bought into the commonly held view that Islam was invented recently enough that we had quite good records of the early years, now I'm starting to question that. That's just one flaw I found in his premise...Oh, well that rather strongly implies that you've got loads more to say! Great, how about giving me a couple more? Also, I really hope you didn't lead with your best one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SevenRivers Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 things that were obvious, jimmy, such as him going on about no written proof being found, from the time of Mohammed... had he researched it correctly, he would have known that it was a mainly oralist society, so things were written down infrequently. That's just one flaw I found in his premise... But didn't he present actual evidence of alternative events, rather than simply claiming existing accounts can't be true because they came from an oralist society? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaliRichard Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 Took almost 200 years yes, began 50 years after his death. I was answering the original question, not asking it. The bible or tora and the new testament are linked. The koran is as already stated a copy with arabic culture thrown in and a few new rules and rituals. The koran is a massive backwards step in comparison to the new testament. The only place I can think of that could mention muhammed is in Revelations, The whole anti christ beast thing. Why would you think Mohammed would be mentioned in revelations? Why would you think it would have anything to do with the anti Christ 'beast thing'? I fail to see why you would draw any of those conclusions, please expand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaliRichard Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 things that were obvious, jimmy, such as him going on about no written proof being found, from the time of Mohammed... had he researched it correctly, he would have known that it was a mainly oralist society, so things were written down infrequently. That's just one flaw I found in his premise... No written proof is the correct position. As he is an historian looking for evidence it is fair of him to say that there is no evidence. I don't know why that constitutes a 'flaw' in what he was saying, he was looking for evidence, he found none, he reported those findings - that's not a flaw it's just his job. The only thing I tend to disagree with him on is when he said that the records report that in Jerusalem there was a tribe preaching a 'new religion' at the same time Islamic sources report Mohammed being there and he seemed to me, and this is just my opinion, to veer away from the fact that it could have been Mohammed in favour of saying 'we just don't know', almost as if he was dismissing the Islamic version. Other than that I think the documentary was very good, I'm always puzzled when people of any religion get upset when historians don't back up their texts or version of events 100%, especially in cases like this one where Tom Holland doesn't actually bring overwhealming evidence against the religion to the table - it always strikes me that people who do make such complaints must have very shakey faith to begin with. I would personally like to see the Islamic authorities open up much more to historians, sometimes it almost seems like they are scared to death of allowing examination of artifacts/places - and it does make me wonder why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johncocker Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 No written proof is the correct position. As he is an historian looking for evidence it is fair of him to say that there is no evidence. I don't know why that constitutes a 'flaw' in what he was saying, he was looking for evidence, he found none, he reported those findings - that's not a flaw it's just his job. The only thing I tend to disagree with him on is when he said that the records report that in Jerusalem there was a tribe preaching a 'new religion' at the same time Islamic sources report Mohammed being there and he seemed to me, and this is just my opinion, to veer away from the fact that it could have been Mohammed in favour of saying 'we just don't know', almost as if he was dismissing the Islamic version. Other than that I think the documentary was very good, I'm always puzzled when people of any religion get upset when historians don't back up their texts or version of events 100%, especially in cases like this one where Tom Holland doesn't actually bring overwhealming evidence against the religion to the table - it always strikes me that people who do make such complaints must have very shakey faith to begin with. I would personally like to see the Islamic authorities open up much more to historians, sometimes it almost seems like they are scared to death of allowing examination of artifacts/places - and it does make me wonder why I wonder if it might have something to do with the fear of the blasphemy laws? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaliRichard Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 [/b] I wonder if it might have something to do with the fear of the blasphemy laws? I imagine (though i do not know) that the people who implement blasphemy laws may very well be the same ones who prevent examination of artifacts/places. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EbonyBranch Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 I imagine (though i do not know) that the people who implement blasphemy laws may very well be the same ones who prevent examination of artifacts/places. The Christian scriptures have been explored and analysed by scholars for a couple of centuries now. The Bible's shakey provenance is well-known in academic circles and, thanks to writers like Bart Ehrmann, Robert Price, Richard Carrier, etc., increasingly entering the sphere of public knowledge. The person currently making the boldest attempt to apply the same criteria to the Quran has to use the pseudonym Christoph Luxenburg to protect his identity. I'm not one of those who believes that all Muslims are evil Jihadists. In fact, I personally know far more Muslims than I do Christians, and my view is that people are people, regardless of which cultural labels they choose. Equally, the Quran is certainly no more evil than the Bible (especially the Torah/Old Testament) and I don't think that Islam is any better or worse than Christianity. Both religions prescribe death for this and charity for that; neither provides any unique or original good advice, nor any good grounds for rational belief. As far as I can tell, all religions have their share of swivel-eyed lunatics. This is more to do with the nature of humanity than the nature of religions. BUT; Islam does seem to have cornered the current market on murderous extremists. A lot of that is clearly traceable to a number of historical socio-economic, political and cultural factors. The upshot is: criticising Christianity generally attracts no more than the collective ire of the likes of George Carey, The Daily Mail and Fox News. Criticising Islam can result in bloodshed. Islam will become more moderate over the course of the next century or so. Eventually, proper historical research into its origins will become more commonplace. When that happens, I suspect that the picture of the early years of Islam that emerges will be a fascinating one. I hope I'm still around to read about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 Islam will become more moderate over the course of the next century or so. You hope, or you know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EbonyBranch Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 You hope, or you know? I predict. Huge swathes of Muslims are already far, far more moderate than the kind of extremists that the press likes to focus on. Oppressive fundamentalism is unsustainable in a world where information flows freely, and information is flowing more freely every day. There will always be an extremist contingent, but across the broad global population of Muslims, moderate views will spread. The hardliners know this; that's why they're so worried about western influences on their kids. I predict that the moderates will win. It happened with Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaliRichard Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 Eventually, proper historical research into its origins will become more commonplace. When that happens, I suspect that the picture of the early years of Islam that emerges will be a fascinating one. I hope I'm still around to read about it. I tend to agree, and I too hope that the opportunies to explore that history come while I am still around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.