Just some ramblings this morning.

We see lots of scholarly work on the historicity of Jesus and early Christianity. It is much harder to find analogous work regarding Muhammad and Islam. The following is my synopsis of some of that scholarship, as I interpret it. It is NOT intended to be a broad overview of all theories, and I admit that it excludes theories that I see as having no basis, such as the theory that Muhammad ibn Abdullah never existed. I will also try to limit my discussion to sources outside Islamic canon, unless there is some non-canon confirmation of the canon.

First, let's look at the political/cultural situation. People in the West (and most Muslims) tend to think that Muhammad was born into a culture consisting almost entirely of polytheistic Arab tribes. My reading is that this is not remotely the case. The Arabian peninsula is adjacent to Palestine and Egypt, which were both populated largely by Christians during Muhammad's lifetime. Recall that (at this time), both areas remained part of the Eastern Roman Empire, in which Christianity (in its various forms) was the official State religion. Both regions also had HUGE Jewish communities. Obviously, these communities also had a presence in the Arabian peninsula.

For example, a large part southern Arabia (initially based in modern Yemen) actually constituted a JEWISH kingdom until a few decades prior to Muhammad (they were actually converts from a few hundred years earlier, rather than ethnic Jews), and IT was actually conquered by a Christian kingdom from modern Eritrea. The Red Sea was the principal trading route with the East, and all of the major ports (on both the Arabian side of the Sea AND the other side) were diverse and multi-cultural.

Add Zoroastrianism to the Judeo-Christian background. The Byzantines were the Western neighbors of the various Arabian polities, but their Eastern neighbors were the Sasanid Empire. That empire ALSO had huge Christian populations (Oriental/Nestorian, largely), but its primary religion was Zoroastrianism, which is ALSO a monotheistic faith.

In other words, Muhammad would have been exposed to monotheistic traditions for his entire life. I think that it is entirely possible that Muhammad actually started his life as a follower of one of the "other" monotheistic traditions in the region. Certainly he was influenced by them. I guess my point is that it is highly-unlikely that he walked into that cave as a polytheist and left it as a monotheist.

Next, let's look at Muhammad himself. I have come to believe that this was not his NAME, but rather a title and that his original given name is lost to history. The word "muhammad" translates as "blessed one," and there is evidence that it was frequently used as a reference for Jesus in Nestorian Christian practice. In fact, I have not found ANY instance of this word being used as a given name PRIOR to the man now known as Muhammad ibn Abdullah. I have found a number of non-Islamic references to the "Arabs led by Muhammad" in connection with the conquest of Palestine and the Arab defeats of the Byzantine armies in that region, but no contemporaneous reference to a new religion among his followers. There is significant documentation that he actually PROTECTED Christian monasteries and places of worship. Would he have done that, if he and his followers had not had SOME kinship with that faith?

Who WERE his followers? Some historical records seem to indicate that his armies included Arabs, Nestorian Christians AND Jews. Why? Well, the first conquests outside Arabia were ... the "Holy Land." Were Muhammad and his followers actually embarking on the first "Crusades" ... seeking to free the "Holy Land" FROM the Byzantines and make it available to all of the monotheistic religions, rather than just the Chalcedonian Christians under Constantinople? It is simply not possible to ascertain motives behind the conquest from the scant historical record, but we CAN look at some other evidence.

Mosques. Most people today understand that a mosque is designed to be oriented toward Mecca, the "Holy City" of Islam. But was that always the case? No. Many of the earliest mosques seem to have been instead oriented NORTH, toward ... Jerusalem. This does not appear to have changed until the 800s. Is it possible that JERUSALEM was the original "Holy City" of Islam, and that this changed over time as the new, developing religion sought to distinguish itself from its Judeo-Christian roots? And why would the Quran have its prophet ascend to Heaven from Jerusalem, if that city were not holy to him and his followers?

DID Islam have Judeo-Christian roots? Well, there are more than fifty individual characters (and their stories) in common between the Bible and the Quran. Islam even incorporates Jesus ... as a prophet, rather than as a divine being from conception. This seems antithetical to modern Christians, but it was NOT considered absurd by MANY early followers of his teachings, including many Jewish Christians.

One such school of thought was called "Adoptionism." It was declared a heresy in the Second Century, but it keeps re-appearing through history. Going back to the beginning, many scholars view the Gospel of Mark as perhaps reflecting partially Adoptionist view. Other (non-canon) Gospels are more so, such as the Gospel of the Hebrews. Saul of Tarsus (St. Paul) was the antithesis of the Adoptionist line of thought, and his side won the theological war ... largely because the Jewish Christians (originally led by Jesus' physical brother) were all killed by the Romans in the Jewish Revolt and the destruction of Jerusalem. Saul/Paul WAS marketing to a non-Jewish audience, and the idea of a deity incarnate was consistent with their pre-existing worldview.

So, could Adoptionist, Jewish-Christians have been among Muhammad's followers, along with Nestorians and "exiled" Jews? Might HE have been a follower of one or moreo of those lines of religious thought ... or at least influenced by them?

Most aspects we understand as Islam did not develop until much later in the 9th century+.

Initially the Romans/Byzantium thought he was a Jew.

I don't truly believe that Muhammad would fully recognize it after the Alexandrian organization etc. much later.

Aggiefan#1 said:

---

Most aspects we understand as Islam did not develop until much later in the 9th century+.

Initially the Romans/Byzantium thought he was a Jew.

I don't truly believe that Muhammad would fully recognize it after the Alexandrian organization etc. much later.

---

Well, the earliest extant manuscripts of the Quran DO radiocarbon-date to the late 7th Century or early 8th, and the variance between their text and that of the canonical Quran are fairly minimal.

One article on "Muhammad as a Jew"

Quote:

---

DID Islam have Judeo-Christian roots? Well, there are more than fifty individual characters (and their stories) in common between the Bible and the Quran. Islam even incorporates Jesus ... as a prophet, rather than as a divine being from conception. This seems antithetical to modern Christians, but it was NOT considered absurd by MANY early followers of his teachings, including many Jewish Christians.

One such school of thought was called "Adoptionism." It was declared a heresy in the Second Century, but it keeps re-appearing through history. Going back to the beginning, many scholars view the Gospel of Mark as perhaps reflecting partially Adoptionist view. Other (non-canon) Gospels are more so, such as the Gospel of the Hebrews. Saul of Tarsus (St. Paul) was the antithesis of the Adoptionist line of thought, and his side won the theological war ... largely because the Jewish Christians (originally led by Jesus' physical brother) were all killed by the Romans in the Jewish Revolt and the destruction of Jerusalem. Saul/Paul WAS marketing to a non-Jewish audience, and the idea of a deity incarnate was consistent with their pre-existing worldview.

So, could Adoptionist, Jewish-Christians have been among Muhammad's followers, along with Nestorians and "exiled" Jews? Might HE have been a follower of one or moreo of those lines of religious thought ... or at least influenced by them?

---

This reads like a narrator's script for one of those ancient mysteries History channel shows.

St James was not Jesus' physical brother and there is no historical indication that there was a theological (Christological) schism between the church in Jerusalem and others.

A deity incarnate was absolutely not consistent with a pre-existing worldview. The Incarnation was one of the most difficult to swallow points of Christianity for pagans...the other being the principle of the Resurrection.

And as to your general line of inquiry, yes, Islam is a kind of Christian heresy. St John of Damascus writes of it this way in the Fount of Knowledge in the early 700s. It is also a blend of many extant religions (including pagan idolatry). None of this is unknown to history.

St John, born Mansour ibn Sarjun lived in Damascus and was the highest ranking magistrate (protosymvoulos, "first counselor") to the Caliph. He was certainly familiar with the religion, but as of yet he didn't view it as a separate faith, but a particular Christian heresy. Here's the chapter from the Fount of Knowledge, "Concerning Heresy" on Islam - or, as he calls it, the "superstition of the Ishmaelites". Of particular note is his reference to a surah that is no longer in the Quran (the Camel).

Quote:

---

And there is also the up until now strong and people-deceiving superstition of the Ishmaelites, being the forerunner of Antichrist. And it is born from Ishmael, who was born from Hagar to Abraham, from which they are called Hagarenes and Ishmaelites. And they call them Saracens, as from (those empty of Sarah), because of what was said by Hagar to the angel: "Sarah has sent me away empty." So then, these were idolaters and reverenced the morning star and Aphrodite, who they indeed named Khabar in their own language, which means great. Therefore, until the time of Heraclius, they were plainly idolaters. From that time and until now came up among them a false prophet called Mamed, who, having encountered the Old and New Testament, as it seems, having conversed with an Arian monk, he put together his own heresy. And under the pretext of seeming pious, attracting people, he reported that a book was sent down to him from heaven by God. Therefore some of the compositions written by him in a book, worthy of laughter, which he handed down to them as an object of reverence.

He says there is one God, the Maker of all things, neither having been begotten nor having begotten. He says Christ is the Word of God and His Spirit, only a creation and servant, and that he was born without seed from Mary the sister of Moses and Aaron. For he says the Word of God and the Spirit went into Mary and she bore Jesus who was a prophet and servant of God. And that the Jews, acting against the law, wanted to crucify him and having seized (him), they crucified his shadow. For Christ himself, they say, was not crucified nor did he die, for God took him to himself into heaven because he loved him.

And he says this, that when Christ went up into the heavens, God questioned him, saying, "O Jesus, did you say that 'I am the Son of God and God'?" And Jesus, they say, answered, "Have mercy on me, O Lord; you know that I did not say (that), nor am I too proud to be your servant, but men who have turned aside wrote that I said this word and lied about me, and are wandering." And God, they say, answered him, "I know that you did not say this word." And many other astonishing sayings in this same writing, worthy of laughter, he boasts God sent down to him.

But we say, "And who is the witness that God gave the writing to him, or which of the prophets foretold that such a prophet would arise?" And they are at a loss, as Moses received on Mount Sinai, in the sight of all the people, the Law of God who appeared in cloud and fire and darkness and storm. And that all the prophets, from Moses and onward, foretold the coming of Christ, and that Christ is God, and the Son of God, being flesh, will come, and will be crucified, and will die, and will rise again, and he will be the judge of the living and the dead. And we say, "Why did your prophet not come in this way, with others witnessing about him, nor coming among you as God gave the Law to Moses on a smoking mountain with all the people watching, and, as you claim, provide this book, so you also might have certainty?" They answer that God does as he wills. We know this too, we say. But, we ask, how did the writing come down to your prophet? And they answer that while he was asleep the writing came upon him. And we jokingly say to them that since he received the writing while sleeping, and did not sense the activity, in him is fulfilled the popular proverb ("You are spinning me dreams").

Again we ask, "Why, when he commanded us in your writing not to do or to receive anything without witnesses, did you not ask him that 'First you show through witnesses whether you are a prophet, and that you came from God, and which Scripture witnesses about you?'" They are silent, ashamed. To whom we say, "For good reason! Since it is not allowed for you to marry a woman without witnesses, nor to buy, nor acquire property, nor do you allow yourselves to have a donkey or an animal unwitnessed. For you indeed also have wives, and properties, and donkeys, and all the rest through witnesses, and you have only a faith and a writing unwitnessed. For he who handed this down to you has in no way an assurance, nor is any previous witness of him known, but he received this also while sleeping."

And they call us Associators, because, they say, we introduce an associate to God by saying Christ is the Son of God and God. To whom we say that this is what the Prophets and Scripture have handed down. And you, as you insist, accept the Prophets. If, therefore, we are wrong saying Christ is the Son of God, they also are who taught and handed it down to us. And some of them indeed say that we have allegorized the Prophets, imputing (sayings) to them. Others say that the Hebrews, hating (us), have deceived us, having written as from the Prophets, so that we might be destroyed.

And again we say to them, "You say that Christ is the Word of God and the Spirit. How then do you rebuke us as 'Associators'? For the Word and the Spirit are each of them unseparated from Him in Whom they have been born. If, therefore, in God is His Word, it is obvious he is also God. But if he is outside of God, as according to you, God is irrational (alogos) and lifeless (apnous). Therefore, in avoiding to associate with God, you have mutilated him. But it would be better for you to say that he has an associate than to mutilate him, and represent him like a stone, or wood, or any of those insensible things. Thus, indeed, falsely accusing us, you call us 'Associators.' But we call you 'Mutilators of God.'"

They also accuse us as idolaters for reverencing the Cross, which they despise. And we say to them, "Why, therefore, do you rub yourselves against the stone by your Khabathan, and love kissing the stone?" And some of them say Abraham had relations with Hagar upon it, and others that he tied up the camel around it when about to sacrifice Isaac. And we respond to them, "The Scripture says that there was a mountain like a grove, and wood from which also Abraham cut for the whole burnt offering on which he laid Isaac, and that he left the donkeys with the servants. Therefore, from what source is your foolish saying? For there is no wood of a forest lying in that place, nor travelling by donkeys." They are indeed ashamed. Nevertheless, they say the stone is of Abraham. Then we say, "If it is of Abraham, as you foolishly say, therefore are you not ashamed, kissing this thing only because Abraham had relations with a woman upon it, or that he tied up a camel? But you censure us because we show reverence to the Cross of Christ through which the strength of the demons and the deceit of the Accuser is destroyed?" And this thing which they say is a stone is the head of Aphrodite which they reverenced, who they also called Khabar, upon which also even up to now the shadow of an inscription appears to careful observers.

As we have said, this Mamed composed many foolish sayings, and he laid upon each of them a title, like the writing "The Women," in which also he plainly legislates (for a man) to take four wives and one thousand concubines if he is able, however many he might put under his hand, aside from the four wives. And he legislated to divorce whichever one he wishes, or if he wishes, also to take care of another, for this very reason: Mamed had a companion named Zeid. This one had a beautiful wife, whom Mamed loved. Therefore, when they were sitting together, Mamed said, "Oh, by the way, God has ordered me to take your wife." And he answered, "You are the Apostle; do as God has said to you. Take my wife." Or rather, so we might tell it from the beginning, he said to him, "God has ordered me, that you divorce your wife" And he divorced. And after several days, he says, "But God has ordered that I will also take her." Then he took (her) and committed adultery with her (and) made this law: "He who wills may divorce his wife, but if after divorcing, he would return to her, another must marry her; for it is not allowed to take (her back) if she has not been married by another. And even if a brother divorces, let his brother marry her, if he is willing." And in the same writing, he transmits this message: "Plough the land which God has given to you, and beautify it" and do this, and in this wayso I might not say all the obscene things as he did.

Again, there is the writing of the Camel of God, about which he says that there was a camel from God, and she drank a whole river, and she could not pass between two mountains through which she could not fit. Therefore, he says, a people was in that place, and indeed on one day they would drink the water and the camel on the next. And while drinking the water, she maintained them by providing milk instead of water. Therefore those men, being wicked, rose up, he says, and killed the camel. But there was a small camel of her offspring which, he says, when the mother had been done away with, cried out to God, and He took her to Himself. To them we say, "From where was that camel?" And they say that it was from God. And we say, "Did any other couple with this camel?" And they say, "No." We say, "Therefore how did she give birth? For we see you camel is without father, without mother, without genealogy. And having given birth, she suffered evil. But neither does the coupler appear, and the little camel was taken up. Therefore, why did not your prophet, to whom, as you say, God has spoken, learn about the camel: where she pastures, and if any drank milk by milking this one? Or was she not at some time, like her mother having met evil men, destroyed? Or did she enter into Paradise, your forerunner, from whom is your river which you foolishly say is of milk? For you say three rivers are to flow for you in Paradise: of water, wine, and milk. If your forerunner camel is outside of Paradise, it is obvious that she has dried up from hunger and thirst, or that others are enjoying her milk. And your prophet is boasting foolishly as having spoken with God, for the mystery of the camel was not revealed to him. And if she is in Paradise, she again drinks the water, and waterless, you will dry up in the midst of the delights of Paradise. But if you desire wine from the river flowing by, since there is no flowing water, for the camel drank it all, you will be inflamed drinking unmixed wine, and collapse in drunkenness, and fall asleep. And also, being heavy-headed after sleep, and having a headache from the wine, you will forget the pleasures of Paradise. Therefore, why did your prophet not think of these things that might happen to you in the Paradise of delights? Nor did he consider about the camel, where she now lives. But neither did you ask him, as the dream-teller was telling you about the three rivers. But we tell you definitely, your wonderful camel has run ahead of you into the souls of donkeys, where you are soon to live like animals. And in that place is the outer darkness, and endless punishment, the roaring fire, the unsleeping worm, and demons of Tartarus.

Mamed speaks again (in) the writing of The Table. And he says that Christ asked God for a table, and he gave it to him. For God, he says, said to him that "I have given to you and to yours an incorruptible table."

Again, the writing of The Cow, and some other foolish sayings worthy of laughter, I think I should skip because of their number. He legislated that they be circumcised, including the women, and also commanded not to keep the Sabbath, nor to be baptized, and to eat some of the things forbidden in the Law, and to avoid (some of) those it permitted. And he entirely forbade the drinking of wine.

---

An early Umayyad period Chalcedonian polemic is not credible proof of a missing Surah.

Granted, but it is interesting.

Also it seems strange to call St John a Byzantine. He was born in Damascus in 675 and lived there until 706 when he became a monk near Jerusalem. Today we'd probably simply call him an Arab.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Granted, but it is interesting.

---

It is. Frankly, given how confused Muslims themselves were about the separation between Hadith Qudsi, Hadith, and Quranic ayahs, it's not surprising. Whether the Uthmanic text is accurate, or how different earlier manuscripts were, or whether the contested account of the Alid Qur'an is real is an interesting debate.

These early Greek sources are useful in counterbalancing the traditional narratives carried within Ibn Ishaq and Tabari's histories, or in the traditional Sunni hadith collections.

Edit in response to your edit: Ethnically you are probably right. I don't know enough about St. John to comment, but I assume he was a follower of the official Byzantine Chalcedonian church? That's what Byzantine meant in my response

Yes, but again at that point it wasn't "Byzantine"...really there was only Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonians. For what its worth he wrote pretty strongly against the emperor against the iconoclasts (which appears to be at least in part due to cultural influences of Islam).

k2aggie07 said:

---

Yes, but again at that point it wasn't "Byzantine"...really there was only Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonians. For what its worth he wrote pretty strongly against the emperor against the iconoclasts (which appears to be at least in part due to cultural influences of Islam).

---

Then I should amend it to reflect "Chalcedonian" instead of Byzantine.

I'm aware that St. John wrote very strongly in defense of iconography. That period of history (iconoclasm) is very interesting and I'd like to do more reading.

What's also fascinating is the fact that iconoclasm doesn't clearly seem to be a part of Islam from the get-go. It's a more tenuous history than the "traditional" Muslims or Wahhabis would have one believe

I want to be clear here. I am not trying to discuss theology. I am addressing historicity. I have no interest in debating theology. I am, however, VERY interested in the historical aspects of both Christianity and Islam, because they have such a bearing upon our lives today.

I suppose that no one actually "knows" whether James was Jesus' blood brother, and Josephus MAY have gotten the matter wrong in Antiquities, but it is silly to argue that there was not a rift between Saul of Tarsus and the Jerusalem church. If we read the non-canon Gospels, it is clear that they took very different approaches to the new "Christian" faith, and the Bible itself tells us that the "Mother Church" in Jerusalem called Saul back home several times. It does not take much "reading between the lines" to see that Saul was getting a scolding for "getting it wrong" in his teachings to the Gentiles. Several of his letters make veiled reference to this and the folks that HE thinks are "getting it wrong." But that dispute doesn't really have much bearing on the historicity of Muhammad or Islam, so I'll let that issue go for this thread.

Both Roman and Greek mythology is FULL of gods coming to Earth and of them siring demigods on mortal women. They were familiar with the concept. Jews felt quite the opposite, and most would have considered the idea to be a blasphemy. Hence, Pauline Christianity "sold" among the gentiles, but (largely) NOT among the Jews (especially those in Palestine). Not the "Incarnation" so much as the CONCEPT of a "Son of God."

I actually considered discussing similarities between Islam and Arian Christianity (as mentioned by John of Damascus or "JD"), because I too see some similarities. But I excluded it for reasons of space/length.

Beyond the fact that he considered Islam to be merely a Christian heresy (I would call it an "offshoot"), JD's "Fountains" section on the nascent Islam doesn't do much at all to help with an historical analysis of either Muhammad or Islam. He just offers a Christian refutation to the theological assertions of the new religion. The "missing" Camel surah is just more of the same, though it DOES indicate that the Quran had not yet become canon at the time of his writing. THAT is potentially useful, historically.

We must recall that the Arabs were largely illiterate and that they tended to memorize things and to recite them. Many even memorized (what they thought to be) the entire Quran. Some also wrote down what they had memorized, and there were bits and pieces of the entire things scattered in the hands of MANY followers. After a big battle in which LOTS of these walking encyclopedias were killed, the caliph (I think it was the third one) ordered a scribe to gather all of them together and assemble them into a single compilation. His procedures are actually interesting, but not really relevant here, except in reference to The Camel.

The procedures put in place said that writings held by various believers were not included in the final compliation unless they had been recorded (or memorized) by multiple people. It is entirely possible that this Camel story did not make the cut.

The fact that the caliph had to take these steps to assemble a "Quran," however, tends to negate to idea that the Quran was somehow transcribed in its entirety during the life of Muhammad, as some contend.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Yes, but again at that point it wasn't "Byzantine"...really there was only Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonians. For what its worth he wrote pretty strongly against the emperor against the iconoclasts (which appears to be at least in part due to cultural influences of Islam).

---

I used "Byzantine" but only as a reference to the polity, not the Church/religion. It is just easier than Eastern Roman Empire, and less confusing than "Roman Empire," since Rome itself was a goner by this time.

It is simplistic to say that the Christian movement was limited to "Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonians." Sure, it is technically accurate, because you are either Chalcedonian or not, but the "non-Chalcedonian" portion of that division was itself divided into LOTS of different schools of thought.

Ok. The main reason I brought up St John was because you implied some kind of vague unformed Christianity, as if small-o orthodoxy was poorly established. This is required for your stage setting that perhaps Mohammed's Islam is really a union of sorts against a weak or fractured Christian orthodoxy.

I don't think the historical record supports this.

It should also be noted that the Apostles went just about everywhere and were all themselves Jews. So if the "Jewish" version was different, we should see it in Turkey (St John), Egypt (St Mark), Rome (St Peter and St Paul), Antioch (St Peter) etc etc etc.

canadiaggie said:

---

An early Umayyad period Chalcedonian polemic is not credible proof of a missing Surah.

---

It isn't "proof," but it is certainly "evidence." Heck, within Christianity we often use similar references in the writings of opponents to reconstruct the teachings of folks who got nixed by the Church and had their teachings destroyed. Pelagius comes to mind.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Ok. The main reason I brought up St John was because you implied some kind of vague unformed Christianity, as if small-o orthodoxy was poorly established. This is required for your stage setting that perhaps Mohammed's Islam is really a union of sorts against a weak or fractured Christian orthodoxy.

I don't think the historical record supports this.

It should also be noted that the Apostles went just about everywhere and were all themselves Jews. So if the "Jewish" version was different, we should see it in Turkey (St John), Egypt (St Mark), Rome (St Peter and St Paul), Antioch (St Peter) etc etc etc.

---

But we must remember that most of what survives today are the early Christian "teachings" after they had been sterilized by the Pauline Christians over the course of many centuries. Find another Nag Hammadi or two, and who knows what more we might learn about the diversity of early Christian thought.

People who are not well-read on these issues tend to think that early Christianity was monolithic. Nothing could be further from the truth. By the 7th Century, things had pretty-well settled down in the West, but there was still a lot of diversity, and they doesn't even get into the Oriental Church.

But I don't want to derail. I am interested in everyone's thoughts on the historicity of Muhammad and early Islam. That is a fairly rare topic on this Forum. We argue about early Christianity all the time.

With that in mind, this is why I addressed the diverse types of Christianity present in the Arabian peninsula during the time of Muhammad. Like John of Damascus, I can see bits and pieces of each of them (plus Judaism) in the Quran.

AggieHank86 said:

---

Just some ramblings this morning.

We see lots of scholarly work on the historicity of Jesus and early Christianity. It is much harder to find analogous work regarding Muhammad and Islam. The following is my synopsis of some of that scholarship, as I interpret it. It is NOT intended to be a broad overview of all theories, and I admit that it excludes theories that I see as having no basis, such as the theory that Muhammad ibn Abdullah never existed. I will also try to limit my discussion to sources outside Islamic canon, unless there is some non-canon confirmation of the canon.

First, let's look at the political/cultural situation. People in the West (and most Muslims) tend to think that Muhammad was born into a culture consisting almost entirely of polytheistic Arab tribes. My reading is that this is not remotely the case. The Arabian peninsula is adjacent to Palestine and Egypt, which were both populated largely by Christians during Muhammad's lifetime. Recall that (at this time), both areas remained part of the Eastern Roman Empire, in which Christianity (in its various forms) was the official State religion. Both regions also had HUGE Jewish communities. Obviously, these communities also had a presence in the Arabian peninsula.

For example, a large part southern Arabia (initially based in modern Yemen) actually constituted a JEWISH kingdom until a few decades prior to Muhammad (they were actually converts from a few hundred years earlier, rather than ethnic Jews), and IT was actually conquered by a Christian kingdom from modern Eritrea. The Red Sea was the principal trading route with the East, and all of the major ports (on both the Arabian side of the Sea AND the other side) were diverse and multi-cultural.

Add Zoroastrianism to the Judeo-Christian background. The Byzantines were the Western neighbors of the various Arabian polities, but their Eastern neighbors were the Sasanid Empire. That empire ALSO had huge Christian populations (Oriental/Nestorian, largely), but its primary religion was Zoroastrianism, which is ALSO a monotheistic faith.

In other words, Muhammad would have been exposed to monotheistic traditions for his entire life. I think that it is entirely possible that Muhammad actually started his life as a follower of one of the "other" monotheistic traditions in the region. Certainly he was influenced by them.

Next, let's look at Muhammad himself. I have come to believe that this was not his NAME, but rather a title and that his original given name is lost to history. 1. The word "muhammad" translates as "blessed one," and there is evidence that it was frequently used as a reference for Jesus in Nestorian Christian practice. In fact, I have not found ANY instance of this word being used as a given name PRIOR to the man now known as Muhammad ibn Abdullah. I have found a number of non-Islamic references to the "Arabs led by Muhammad" in connection with the conquest of Palestine and the Arab defeats of the Byzantine armies in that region, but no contemporaneous reference to a new religion among his followers. 2. There is significant documentation that he actually PROTECTED Christian monasteries and places of worship. Would he have done that, if he and his followers had not had SOME kinship with that faith?

Who WERE his followers? Some historical records seem to indicate that his armies included Arabs, Nestorian Christians AND Jews. Why? Well, the first conquests outside Arabia were ... the "Holy Land." 3. Were Muhammad and his followers actually embarking on the first "Crusades" ... seeking to free the "Holy Land" FROM the Byzantines and make it available to all of the monotheistic religions, rather than just the Chalcedonian Christians under Constantinople? It is simply not possible to ascertain motives behind the conquest from the scant historical record, but we CAN look at some other evidence.

Mosques. Most people today understand that a mosque is designed to be oriented toward Mecca, the "Holy City" of Islam. But was that always the case? 4. No. Many of the earliest mosques seem to have been instead oriented NORTH, toward ... Jerusalem. This does not appear to have changed until the 800s. Is it possible that JERUSALEM was the original "Holy City" of Islam, and that this changed over time as the new, developing religion sought to distinguish itself from its Judeo-Christian roots? And why would the Quran have its prophet ascend to Heaven from Jerusalem, if that city were not holy to him and his followers?

5. DID Islam have Judeo-Christian roots? Well, there are more than fifty individual characters (and their stories) in common between the Bible and the Quran. Islam even incorporates Jesus ... as a prophet, rather than as a divine being from conception. This seems antithetical to modern Christians, but it was NOT considered absurd by MANY early followers of his teachings, including many Jewish Christians.

One such school of thought was called "Adoptionism." It was declared a heresy in the Second Century, but it keeps re-appearing through history. Going back to the beginning, many scholars view the Gospel of Mark as perhaps reflecting partially Adoptionist view. Other (non-canon) Gospels are more so, such as the Gospel of the Hebrews. Saul of Tarsus (St. Paul) was the antithesis of the Adoptionist line of thought, and his side won the theological war ... largely because the Jewish Christians (originally led by Jesus' physical brother) were all killed by the Romans in the Jewish Revolt and the destruction of Jerusalem. Saul/Paul WAS marketing to a non-Jewish audience, and the idea of a deity incarnate was consistent with their pre-existing worldview.

So, could Adoptionist, Jewish-Christians have been among Muhammad's followers, along with Nestorians and "exiled" Jews? Might HE have been a follower of one or moreo of those lines of religious thought ... or at least influenced by them?

---

I'll address the bold points 1 by 1.

1.Muhammad derives from the H-M-D root. Muhammad more accurately means "one who is praised" rather than "blessed one". One of the Companions was named Muhammad - Muhammad ibn Maslama.

2. The Qur'an explicitly mentions that God checks the destructive intent of those who seek to destroy churches and synagogues by the safeguarding intent of others. Multiple tafseer have interpreted this as an injunction to respect Abrahamic houses of worship.

3. Muhammad did not lead the invasions of Syria. When Muhammad died, many Arab tribes thought that they'd been released from their coalition with the Muslims. Abu Bakr, Ali, and Umar set aside their own brewing conflict to bring them back into the fold in the Ridda Wars. Muhammad's goal was to erase tribal strife and unite people in religion rather than tribal allegiance. It is more likely that Abu Bakr and Umar recognized that it would be easier to hold together a coalition of tribes with a singular goal than embarking on a "crusade" of any sort. In fact, I question the singularly religious motivation theory behind the Arab invasions. The temptation of loot and plunder seems to have played a big part.

4. The Qibla was changed a few months after Muhammad relocated to Madinah. The reasons why are not clear. Muhammad had been called in as a peacemaker between the tribes of Madinah, previously engaged in civil war. Perhaps it was done to differentiate from the Jewish Arab tribes.

5. Yes. Islam itself acknowledges this. It's not a mystery. The Qur'an constantly links the prophetic heritages and the common thread connection it to the traditions which came before.

canadiaggie said:

---

5. Yes. Islam itself acknowledges this. It's not a mystery. The Qur'an constantly links the prophetic heritages and the common thread connection it to the traditions which came before.

---

I admit that I included this point as a bit of a poke at a poster on the Politics forum, who insists that this is not the case and that Islam is actually the worship of a pagan Moon deity. In fact, he insists that the scholarship is in near-unanimity on this point.

Though the INTERESTING question to me is whether Islam actually STARTED as a FORM of Christianity or a fusion of Christianity and Judaism. I've also read some interesting stuff about commonalities with the Samaritan version of Judaism, for instance.

canadiaggie said:

---

3. Muhammad did not lead the invasions of Syria. When Muhammad died, many Arab tribes thought that they'd been released from their coalition with the Muslims. Abu Bakr, Ali, and Umar set aside their own brewing conflict to bring them back into the fold in the Ridda Wars. Muhammad's goal was to erase tribal strife and unite people in religion rather than tribal allegiance. It is more likely that Abu Bakr and Umar recognized that it would be easier to hold together a coalition of tribes with a singular goal than embarking on a "crusade" of any sort. In fact, I question the singularly religious motivation theory behind the Arab invasions. The temptation of loot and plunder seems to have played a big part.

---

True, because he died (probably) in 632ce, but that does not necessarily mean that he did not START the conquest with the goal of controlling Jerusalem. I was talking about the references to the conquest of Palestine by "Arabs of Muhammad" in writings by the Byzantine Christians.

Clearly, he had to pacify and unite the Arabian peninsula first.

Quote:

---

Though the INTERESTING question to me is whether Islam actually STARTED as a FORM of Christianity or a fusion of Christianity and Judaism. I've also read some interesting stuff about commonalities with the Samaritan version of Judaism, for instance.

---

Not sure how one could come to any other conclusion. What is the alternative to this?

Unless the contention when you say form of Christianity as this is a single name for a large extant sect? In which case I don't think that's true.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Quote:

---

Though the INTERESTING question to me is whether Islam actually STARTED as a FORM of Christianity or a fusion of Christianity and Judaism. I've also read some interesting stuff about commonalities with the Samaritan version of Judaism, for instance.

---

Not sure how one could come to any other conclusion. What is the alternative to this?

Unless the contention when you say form of Christianity as this is a single name for a large extant sect? In which case I don't think that's true.

---

Well, ONE alternative is that he sat in a cave until a deity decided to dictate a new religion for him to memorize.

Another might be that he came up with the idea to form a new, tailored religion, in order to allow him to united the disparate tribes of the Arabian peninsula.

But I agree that Islam started as an offshoot of the other two major Abrahamic faiths. That is the easy part. The FUN part is trying to figure how they got from point A to point Z.

That's an odd way of minimalizing the Islamic revelatory experience. The literalist explanation of sitting in a cave is tempered by what the Sufis would describe as Muhammad's fanaa fi-llah.

That's not the alternative - to a believing Muslim, that's exactly what happened.

There was also the religion of the Hanifs of Arabia - kind of an amorphous Abrahamism that Muhammad was almost certainly more influenced by than Christianity and Judaism. It would explain the references to the original faith of Abraham - and Islam's claim to be a return to that prime monotheism.

canadiaggie said:

---

That's an odd way of minimalizing the Islamic revelatory experience. The literalist explanation of sitting in a cave is tempered by what the Sufis would describe as Muhammad's fanaa fi-llah.

That's not the alternative - to a believing Muslim, that's exactly what happened.

There was also the religion of the Hanifs of Arabia - kind of an amorphous Abrahamism that Muhammad was almost certainly more influenced by than Christianity and Judaism. It would explain the references to the original faith of Abraham - and Islam's claim to be a return to that prime monotheism.

---

Well, I am a sort of agnostic Deist, so the whole "revalatory experience" thing strikes me as unlikely. Let's just say that I don't completely discount the possibility, but I don't put a lot of stock in it, either.

But I find the process and evolution of religions to be utterly fascinating. I could actually have gotten on board with several of the early versions of Christianity, but the Trinitarian theology is just too much to swallow, for me.

The Hanif issue is interesting as well. If it ever existed, I agree that it would be a better fit than either Judaism or any of the early branches of Christianity. The passage of time after the split from Judaism might conceivably also explain the differences between the Torah and Quran versions of the stories of the same individuals.

But, from what I have read, archaeology hasn't given us much proof that the Hanif tradition ever actually existed. I don't recall that I have seen anything outside the Islamic references to it, but the concept of two separate, parallel monotheisms descending from (1) the wife and (2) the concubine of the same man is fascinating, though it strikes me as being a bit "too convenient" for Muhammad's narrative. Are you aware of any secular material on the Hanif tradition?

In my reading, there is pretty good mention of Muhammad from non Islamic sources within 100 years of 632. I think it highly likely that Muhammad lived. In addition, the dispute about who should rule as the Caliph after his death is so well documented by competing I terests, I find his historocity to be highly likely.

As for his belief system, his supposed lineage to Ishmael was important enough to believe that this was the source of his monotheism.

Finally, many are unaware of the importance of Jesus in Islam. He was given a divine revelation by God, and was believed to have preached a form of Islam. In the Hadiths, Jesus returns to earth to kill the antichrist during the end times. He was a very important prophet, second only to Muhammad, just not God.

The prophecy of Muhammad in Genesis is also pretty impressive, and predates Muhammad by quite a few centuries, so even the Jews believed on a great nation coming from Ishmael.

BusterAg said:

---

In my reading, there is pretty good mention of Muhammad from non Islamic sources within 100 years of 632. I think it highly likely that Muhammad lived. In addition, the dispute about who should rule as the Caliph after his death is so well documented by competing I terests, I find his historocity to be highly likely.

As for his belief system, his supposed lineage to Ishmael was important enough to believe that this was the source of his monotheism.

Finally, many are unaware of the importance of Jesus in Islam. He was given a divine revelation by God, and was believed to have preached a form of Islam. In the Hadiths, Jesus returns to earth to kill the antichrist during the end times. He was a very important prophet, second only to Muhammad, just not God.

---

This is the Sunni and/or literalist interpretation, which actually comparatively downplays the importance of Christ.

Traditional Shi'ite imamiyah theology further emphasizes his role as bearer of the Nur and the living Word of God. Jesus is prophet (Nabi), messenger (Rasul) and bearer of the Word (Imam in the Shi'ite sense).

AggieHank86 said:

---

canadiaggie said:

---

That's an odd way of minimalizing the Islamic revelatory experience. The literalist explanation of sitting in a cave is tempered by what the Sufis would describe as Muhammad's fanaa fi-llah.

That's not the alternative - to a believing Muslim, that's exactly what happened.

There was also the religion of the Hanifs of Arabia - kind of an amorphous Abrahamism that Muhammad was almost certainly more influenced by than Christianity and Judaism. It would explain the references to the original faith of Abraham - and Islam's claim to be a return to that prime monotheism.

---

Well, I am a sort of agnostic Deist, so the whole "revalatory experience" thing strikes me as unlikely. Let's just say that I don't completely discount the possibility, but I don't put a lot of stock in it, either.

But I find the process and evolution of religions to be utterly fascinating. I could actually have gotten on board with several of the early versions of Christianity, but the Trinitarian theology is just too much to swallow, for me.

The Hanif issue is interesting as well. If it ever existed, I agree that it would be a better fit than either Judaism or any of the early branches of Christianity. The passage of time after the split from Judaism might conceivably also explain the differences between the Torah and Quran versions of the stories of the same individuals.

But, from what I have read, archaeology hasn't given us much proof that the Hanif tradition ever actually existed. I don't recall that I have seen anything outside the Islamic references to it, but the concept of two separate, parallel monotheisms descending from (1) the wife and (2) the concubine of the same man is fascinating, though it strikes me as being a bit "too convenient" for Muhammad's narrative. Are you aware of any secular material on the Hanif tradition?

---

W.M. Watt discusses this in Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman. It's a bit dated, but he goes into when the appellation of "Muslim" really began to apply to the community.