Sunday, September 02, 2012

ISLAM: THE UNTOLD STORY

Very Jewish?

Danish Professor Patricia Crone believes that Mecca has Jewish as well as Arabian roots. 

Islam can be seen as having deep roots in Judaism.

Islam can be seen as a tribal rebellion against the Byzantine and Persian empires, with the Arabs and Jews being allies against these empires.

("The gospel truth?" Patricia Crone - Wikipedia)

Tom Holland

Were the Arabs of the seventh century Muslim at all?

"Tom Holland kept on asking questions like that during Islam: the Untold Story." (UK's Channel 4).

Islam: the Untold Story, review 

What is the historical evidence for the seventh century origins of Islam? 

Tom Holland writes: "What I actually said in the film was that I had expected to find contemporaneous Muslim evidence - 'but there's nothing there.' 

"And the Koran aside, the first mention of the prophet Muhammad's name in Arabic is on the coin that we featured in Part Five, and on the Dome of the Rock."

File:Old World 820.png

Professor Fred Donner has written: 

"We have to admit collectively that we simply do not know some very basic things about the Koran - things so basic that the knowledge of them is usually taken for granted by scholars dealing with other texts. 

"They include such questions as: How did the Qur'an originate? Where did it come from, and when did it first appear? How was it first written? In what kind of language was - is - it written?"
Islam: The Untold Story - Tom Holland responds.


Tom Holland suggests that the caliphs used Mohmmed in the same way that Constantine and other Emperors used Christ - to help bolster their Empires. 


Tom Holland suggests in his book, In The Shadow of the Sword, that Islam took many, many decades to evolve.

He also suggests that it developed out of Jewish, Christian and other cultures.

Islam: the Untold Story, review 

Muhammad was born into the the Quraysh clan. The Quraysh were the guardians of the Kaaba within the town of Mecca and were the dominant tribe of Mecca. The Kaaba was an important pagan shrine. It brought revenues to Mecca because of the multitude of pilgrims that it attracted.

Holland does not see the Koran as History.

Holland says: "I think there’s a degree to which Muslims, far more than Christians, have felt that the foundation myths of their religion are somehow historical fact, and it seems to me that they’re clearly not. There must be a bedrock of fact, but it is more sacred history than it is history....

"There’s a sense in which I think as Islam evolves and as, let’s say, Muslims start to realize that they are in competition with Jews and Christians, they need to have their Prophet have a revelation from an angel...

"The horror of the Near East in the seventh century beggers description - it’s a place ravaged by plague, by war, by gangs, by factionalism and of course in such a world women are objects to be stolen and plundered and abused. 

"A lot of the things about Islam which seem retrogressive to us now at the time must have been an absolute blessing to women. 

"One of the reasons why it’s specified that a man can have more than one wife is precisely so women will have a protector. 

Islam in Spain.

"The requirements to keep themselves covered, which seems to us so sexist, actually in a world where a
woman’s flesh is a commodity, is something incredibly precious. 

"So I think that looking at it in that light you see, ethically and morally, just how much better the world is for these revolutions. 

"And so it’s so tempting to buy into the notion that everything was great before these miserable Christians with their grey breath and these Muslims with their stern repellent warrior king came along, but I have absolutely no doubt that I’d rather be living in a monotheistic world than a premonotheistic world." 

Islam: the Untold Story, review

In The Shadow of the Sword, by Tom Holland

aangirfan: DID A JEW SPLIT ISLAM?

13 comments:

j said...

Mr. Holland, of whom I know only by Your article, doesn't really get to the point that was to make:
Christianity and Islam are FEUDALISTIC religions. Their "God" or "Allah" was a feudal Lord or fief giver, while their followers were fief takers. Also a king or duke, who handed out fiefs (only possession, not property) considered himself to be a fief taker from the feudal Lord "God".

Like a person that grows up starts with a young-child consciousness (no empathy, pulling legs out of flies) a child consciousness, a puberty consciousness and a after-puberty consciousness, mankind develops different consciousnesses too.
Karl Marx saw this and distinguished between a "tribal"-, "slave-holder"-,"feudal"- and "bourgeois"-consciousness. While I disagree with Marx' (three-stepping) historical dialectic and also with his "slave-holder"-consciousness (the consciousness is still only "tribal"), Karl Marx was right.

The difference between tribal and feudal consciousness is this: A tribal consciousness can never accept others of other tribes as equal. This is why a lot of tribal names (in America or Euro-Asia) mean translated "humans". So those of other tribes where not "humans" but more like animals (goyem= cattle).
This is why the old Romans (like old Mayas, Aztecs) didn't feel a thing, when captured warriors of other tribes had to kill each others brutally as "gladiators".

This changes with feudalism. Suddenly 'artificial' "tribes" showed up - like "Saxons" or "Franks" -, which were in fact composed of a lot(!) of different tribes (we know only few of those archaic tribe-names). But this was no more a problem then.

Also solidarity within those (often very mobile) "states" relied no more on identification by tribal birth, but on a strong binding between feudal-lord and feudal-follower. The first had the duty to protect his followers and support their supply, the latter to give fealty (often in arms).
This is why the Celtics and the early Germanic tribes where defeated by the Roman Empire. And why the Romans had to fear those already feudal thinking later Germanic "states" (Goths and so on). Although the Roman Empire later gave "Roman Citizenship" (even then very hesitantly) to persons of other italic tribes, there was no real reliable solidarity outside the walls of Rome in the time of "tribal" consciousness.

Now to religion: Although the holy book of the Israelites was taken over by Christians and Muslims the understanding of "God" couldn't differ more:
"Jehovah" was a t r I b a l god. The fate of people of other tribes was irrelevant and didn't count at all.
"God" and "Allah" on the other side where 'cosmic Gods' (with the only exception is that the fate of animals is still ignored - why can our suffering and tortured pigs, turkeys, cattle, hens and so on at least not end up in heaven?)
Also the conquering feudal Christians and Muslims mostly did so, because they owed it their feudal Lord as FEALTY. Not surprisingly those Franks and Saxon and other Kings also definitely expected from "God" all his help in a battle (a feudal-lord owes this as much as his follow men owe their fealty to him!). Religious felling then had more to do with warrior-honour and loyalty then with what we nowadays think religion should be.

Nowadays the meaning of "God" or "Allah" has changed once more in the mirror of our consciousness, as we have a "bourgeois" consciousness now.

Anonymous said...

Congratulations for the enlightening article. My impression is that one of the consequences for islam from coming into nearer contact with Europeans, where religion holds far less sway and has mostly lost its power to suppress people who look at them level-headed, is that Islam and its edifice of yet to be challenged dogmas, is that they will be challenged and analyzed to a level similar to what has happened to Christianity and its bible. Next in line is judaism.

BTW, if you have read the Dune series of Phillip K Dick you will have come across a concept he calls "protective faith". We already know that bth Christianity AND Islam derive from judaism, or rather Pharisaism or whatever it was called back then.

Taking that concept, what strikes me as interesting is that while jews declare both Christians and Muslims as Untermenschen, both Christianity and Islam declare jews as "protected" - Islam explicitely, Christian scrpture implicitly. That is an interesting contradiction to say the least, and if I am correct in my assumptions, the ideological edifices of both Christianity and Islam were put in scene in order to allow the pharisee priesthood to a) conquer and subjugate those peoples and b) put in place ideologies which protect them and their flock (which we know as "jews") while plausibly denying that they have anything to do with anything.

I would appreciate if you'd look at this and correct me if anything is wrong in what I present here as a long held speculative assessment.

Anon said...

Many thanks for the useful comments.

- Aangirfan

j said...

PART 1
In my opinion neither Christianity nor Islam really derived from Judaism. Yes, big parts of holy text where copied. But the religious understanding of "God" (and even more) is totally different.
The same is true for Hinduism, which also copied all(!) books from the old Brahmanic religion - but is nonetheless an absolutely different religion - even considering Brahma as next to be totally unimportant and nearly not even being worth to be worshipped at all!

Islam is a pure product of feudalism mentality. This in contrary to nowadays Christianity. The Mentality of the "bourgeois" time entered Christianity by the Protestants (Luther) and the Reformatics (Calvin). And although Catholicism was their foe, also (nowadays) Catholicism was strongly influenced by them and was by this also able to adopt to the new "bourgeois" consciousness.
In my opinion it is a disaster that Islam never made this ("bourgeois") step of ripening. As if a child could not - mentally - enter the age of puberty - or leave it.

Also, in my opinion, the Arabic area suffers from a 'lousy' produced feudalistic time: Even nowadays Libya and Syria have tribes! Feudalism was made to overcome that!!

But also Christianity has very old (tribal) artefacts. And I, no more a Christian nowadays, likes this "artefact" even more than the rest!

In the days when the Romans got into contact with this new "Christians" other religions where considered absolutely different from how we consider other religions nowadays. 'Other religions' didn't really exist then. Instead there was a translation-table. The Egypt Osiris was (as far as I remember) taken as Zeus/Jupiter. And the Roman general who conquered Babylon may have killed a lot of people and destroyed a lot of houses. But he would never ever have attacked an Ishtar-temple. Because Ishtar was considered to be Aphrodite/Venus. And no(!) roman general really wanted to get problems with Aphrodite/Venus.

When St. Paul appeared in Rome the Romans missed "terra mater" (Greek: "Gea" or "Ge" or "Gaja" - the words "geology" or "geometry" come from this goddess "Ge" = Eartha).
No other then Livius praises the "Greek religion" ardently for giving "Gea/Gaja" such a prominent position in the then ruling Religion of HESIOD. We must know that nearly all of the Roman gods were agricultural gods. Even Saturn (later made identical with the Greek "Kronos") has his name from the Indo-European root-word "seed" or "to sow".

When the early ^Christians appeared in Rome (St. Paul) the Romans misses Gea (= Eartha) - and so St. Mary had to be made to "Gea/Eartha".
Martin Luther, of cause, was absolutely right, that the New Testament doesn't give Mary any important role. Yes, she is among the little crowd that takes Jesus from the cross. And yes, before that it is mentioned that she orders the teenager Jesus to stop playing and go "to the wine-merchant and buy some wine, because our guests are coming and we have not enough wine in the house". And even than Jesus says not something nice about his mother but he then even - typical for a teenager - starts to grumble and grouse. Ad as far as I remember he than makes his "water-to-wine" wonder.
So Luther was absolutely right. But what he didn't understand was, that for the Romans Mary was Gea and Jesus was the young Uranos. And the Christian "God" was only the grown up Baby-Jesus-Uranos. And of cause Mary gave birth to Jesus as a virgin, because "Gea" had given birth to Uranos as a virgin! She even herself came to existence without sexual intercourse as she came directly out of the "Chaos"! And later she married her son Uranos and Uranos then he was the earliest god (of the earthern line).

j said...

PART 2
Hardly any Christian nowadays would have a problem, if the body(!!) of Jesus was produced by Mary and her legitimate husband Joseph. This because it is the mind(!!) of Jesus that makes him God's Son.

Now a side remark (as it doesn't really belong here!): I am convinced that this absolutely stupid story of "Maya" giving birth to her son Buddha as - more or less - a virgin (a white elephant is supposed to have impregnated Maya by the shank - how stupid can you get!) goes back to those Hesiodic Greeks in India. Yes, Greeks in India! Because Alexander stopped his senseless conquering in India and then marched back. And a lot of Greeks and Macedonians (wisely!) feared the march back through the terrible Persian desert. And they stayed in India and founded - quite successfully - kingdoms there (see for example "The Questions of Milinda" - "Milinda" being the Indian naming for the Greek-Indian King "Menandros": http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/milinda.htm ).

Also I think that the Indian "Tantrism" is a 'Greek-Hesiodic' import. The "dead-body-Shiva" ("Shava") - he has nothing to do with the real Dravidic "dancing" Shiva - is the male part in anyone of us. And Shava is passive (like a person in a cinema-chair is not really involved in what happens on the screen). Like Uranos - after his male member had been cut off - was no more able to be active or even to talk. Of cause also the old Greeks knew that a man, who lost his male member (in an accident or war) was not paralysed. But they didn't care, because the point was the HESIOD-SYSTEM. And according to this system the male part in everyone of us is PASSIV. While the female part in everyone of us is ACTIVE ("Shakti"). And unlike to us north Europeans ('the farmer ploughs and puts his seed in "passive" earth') to Greece (also including parts of nowadays Turkey and nowadays Sicily and southern Italy) Gea/Eartha/Shakti were never passiv - but instead terrorising the people with one earthquake after the other and with terrible Volcanoes ("Aetna", "Vesuvio" and so on). NOT PASSIVE!

Anonymous said...

Well done, again.

I understand there is good ground to support the Jewish connection with the Saudi Royal Family:

http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.co.uk/2009/03/saudi-arabia-jewish-bloodline-jewish.html

In particular I note what King FAISAL AL-SAUD himself declared to the WASHINGTON POST on Sept. 17, 1969:

“WE, THE SAUDI FAMILY, are cousins of the Jews: we entirely disagree with any Arab or Muslim Authority which shows any antagonism to the Jews; but we must live together with them in peace. Our country (Arabia) is the Fountain head from where the first Jew sprang, and his descendants spread out all over the world.”

My memory informs me that aangirfan already covered this subject in detail some time ago?

Btw - Any thoughts on 'October Surprise 2012' ?

Keep up the good work and Come by sometime to:
http://worldblogofblogs.blogspot.co.uk/

Carol A. Valentine x

DaftAida said...

When I looked into this question, I simply typed 'who created Islam'? into the search engine and read all about Alberto Rivera's account with which I was and remain satisfied. All paths lead from and to Rome. Yet the big secret is that the Jew-ish Pagan Pontif sits privately on a throne of Allah, not Christ and underneath his 'fish headed cap' (people of the sea - Phoenicians) he wears a Jew-ish skull cap or Yalmuka. Since Christainity and Islam were about the control of the people through war for State and those in control of the banks and all else are Jew-ish, it makes sense that these religious sects were created by those same forces.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Aang, Thanks commentators. I do like it when we get to the heart of the matter.

j said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ummer F said...

Bloody hell... what's with the commentators here? Don't you guys smell a conspiracy in Tom Holland?

Oh well...

Anyway, Tom Holland is an atheist who has his degrees in English literature. He has done armchair research into islam. But for some reason some in the media and what not are praising him as a renowned historian. How is a historian? Aren't historians qualified to a certain degree above phd?

What is certain, Tom Holland is a novelist. He wrote some fiction, then moved on to Roman and Persian historical novels, and then to Islam.

But like an atheist, he promoted an idea that suited his atheist mindset. That "islam evolved out of empire", and thus he uses the evolution point as the universal theory to be applied everywhere.

The Alberto Rivera lie is similar to that:
http://www.simandan.com/?p=254

We can all understand that Islam is a threat, a threat not just upon resources, but on political and even spiritual ideals.

Admitting it as a threat, means we have something to lose if we take it on. The question is, who are those who have to lose from islam? Will they lose money to islam? Their lives? I can imagine that may have been true for almost all of Christendom, in fact the large majority of it until the 16th century.

But that's a side point.

Here are some responses against the dodgy "historian" Tom Holland:
http://www.iera.org.uk/press_04sept2012.html

Though let me add something. I found it very strange that Tom Holland while in Israel, under the al Aqsa mosque/church/synagog. He said something very very strange, almost occult. He claimed that there were some feelings he could feel of spiritual... no, rather nuclear forces and that Jerusalem would have some interesting world renowed future or something to that effect. For those of us who have been researching and saying that Jerusalem is going to be set up as the next or a future world capital (like New York is one today with the UN there)... that was extremely shocking to hear something like that come from him.

http://www.imranhosein.org/books/37-jerusalem-in-the-quran.html

Odin's Raven said...

Robert Spencer has written an interesting book, 'Did Muhammad Exist?' It is a popularization of scholarship on the topic and it is well presented.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/09/new-book-explores-whether-muhammad-was-myth-or-fact.html

Anonymous said...

I thought for a while this blog was for descent people en search of truth. Many participants seemed clever, some less.But all, I believed sincere and truthful. This article has completely turned upside down my first impression. It is just unbelievable ! As soon as Islam was pronounced, the vomiting began. It's the cultural trash fed from jewish propaganda that's causing this spewing. Bad food always result in indigestion, often causes diarrhoea.
Really pitiful !

Jinn Tonic said...

youtu.be/aAMX3ecS6Kc

The Jinn And Tonic Show tomorrow will have Tom Holland as a guest - the producer of the Channel 4 documentary "Islam - The untold story" and author of "In the shadow of the sword." It is possible to watch the show live on BlogTV (link on the video) and if you wish you may also call in to the show with Skype.

 
Site Meter