First post here.I'm interested in engaging with those familiar with the critical scholarship on early Islamic history, particularly regarding the formation of what later became the “official” narrative (Sunna, biography of Muhammad, early historiography).>Popular works include:-Patricia Crone – Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World-Édouard-M Gallez – The messiah and his prophet -Dan Gibson – Quranic GeographyI'd like to open a serious discussion on themes such as:>Geographical and historical inconsistencies in early sources>analysis of key terms and proper names in the Qur’anic corpus and early Islamic tradition>The relationship between emerging Islam and contemporaneous religious & political contexts>The processes through which early narratives may have been constructed & transmittedYou name itbasically share any hypothesis which could come in contradiction with the official narrative on the birth of Islam
Revisionist "scholarship" is a joke. Petra has dick diddley squat to do with the emergence of Islam and Tom Holland doesn't know wtf he's talking about.
>>18345905>Tom HollandDon't know who that is but although I agree the theory of Petra being the birthplace of Islam is tenuous, it did play a role in the birth of Islam, on a longer time frame than Muhammad's lifetime. Mainly concerning places such the Kaaba and the rites of hajj.It can only be understood through the cult of the ancient arabs who worshipped the black stone or baetyls (picrel). A cult which is found later in the black stone on the Kaaba nowadays.Even the name of the Kaaba "bayt Allah" (house of god) comes from the word baetyl (bayt-el, house of the god) of the ancient semites.It seems strange how much muslims worship that stone during hajj given how absent it is from the quranic text, but it's obvious clear it's a remnant of the preislamic cult which is found in Petra among others.A theory is that the integration of the black stone worship to what would later become islam happened during the second Fitna or arab civil war, when Abd Allah ibn al Zubayr a contender to the title of caliph settles the caliphate of Hejaz, first in Petra then moving to Mecca with the black stone. (See Gibson's work on early mosques facing Petra)
>>18345889Muslims refer to pre-Islamic Arabia as the Jahiliyah which in Arabic means “Age of Ignorance” because they claim that pre-Islamic Arabia was entirely pagan and that Arab pagans were savages that buried female infants alive among other questionable practices. But there is no evidence that Arab pagans ever buried female infants alive, not even contemporary Christian writers who hated paganism ever specifically mentioned burying female infants alive as something widespread among Arab pagans. Besides, before Muhammed was born, Arab paganism was on the decline and Arabia was already moving towards some form of monotheism as religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Mandaeism, Zoroastrianism, etc with some possible syncretism with local traditions were widespread. If Islam never existed, then Arabia would have just eventually converted to Christianity, most likely the Syriac rite.
Revisionists are retarded especially Patricia Crone, her theories legitimately make zero sense, only the traditionalist version does
>>18345942Were said Christian writers present in Mecca? Such writers and sources would be irrelevant due to being so far away, Arabia is a big place, obviously places like the Levant and the Bedouin interior would be radically different bearing little similarities outside the language, and no the interior would not have moved towards monotheism due to their entrenchment in venerating their forefathers traditions and being the center of Arab paganism in Mecca at the time
>>18345942Not only was paganism on the decline but it's most likely that christianisation of arabs was already achieved in the late 6th century, around the time (historical) Muhammad was born.>Al-Nu'man III ibn al-Mundhir, "king of all arabs of Persia and Byzantium" converts to christianity in the year 594 AD>chief of the Lakhmids, we know he had spread his authority to "all of the arabs">also christians mentioned as further south as Himyar (today's saudi/Yemeni border) with the martyrs of NajranThe burial of infants from the islamic tradition is most likely a rhetoric used to mark the "revelation" of islam as the beginning of a golden age, putting an end to the hypothetic "dark ages" that ruled before. The archeological evidence is in contradiction with the polytheism described in the sunna.But then the quranic text becomes clearer, it's obvious that the verses address an audience that is already familiar with figures and themes from Judaism and christianity: Moses, Solomon, Jesus, the trinity etc. The quran was preached to arab christians
>>18345985>Meccathere's no archeological evidence that this settlement existed before the 8th century contrary to what the prolific sunni literature says. the first historical mention of Mecca is in the chronicle Continuatio Byzantia Arabica in 741 AD, in relation with the conflict Abd Allah ibn al Zubayr fought with the Ummayads (and even then they located it in Mesopotamia)See Aelius Gallus' (roman) expedition in Arabia in the 1st century A.D. for ex, no Mecca was mentioned although they traveled Hejaz north to south>>18345974What theory exactly , and why is the tradition more legitimate in the eyes of history
>>18345938Muslims, by definition, don't worship the Black Stone, or any stone. Muslims worship Allah alone. >A theory is that the integration of the black stone worshipThe stone was originally in mecca, to my knowledge. Though I haven't heard of the meccan pagans actually worshipping the black stone as a baetyl along with the host of idols that were in the Kaaba in those days, it wouldn't be too surprising if they did. Some evidence would be nice. In any case, whether they did or not, once Mecca was conquered in 630 and the idols within destroyed, the kaaba was reconsecrated to the worship of Allah alone. The stone remained as a fixture, and although there are hadith about the Prophetﷺ interacting with it before and after he started spreading Islam, he didn't worship the stone, nor did any that followed him.>early mosques facing PetraThey faced Jerusalem. Guess what city just so happens to lie between there and Mecca and Medina?>>18345942>they claim that pre-Islamic Arabia was *mostly* paganftfy. Christians and more prominently, jews were a known presence during the jahilliyyah. The majority of arabs though, were idolaters.>But there is no evidence that Arab pagans ever buried female infants alive, Islamic sources go into detail on it. I'm not gonna type out another long response to your copypasta, so i'll just link to my past post>>18268185 >inb4 you don't trust the Islamic sources There's that reply letter from Yazdegird to Umar(ra). https://www.persepolis.nu/timeline-letters.htm>inb4 its fakeMore evidence than you've brought up bub
>>18345989>The archeological evidence is in contradiction with the polytheism described in the sunna.How so?>>18346017>there's no archeological evidence that this settlement existed before the 8th century If that's the case, that's due to the saudis being retarded and destroying their own history, a process that has itself been documented, at least.
>>18346040>Muslims, by definition, don't worship the Black Stone, or any stone. Muslims worship Allah aloneIf that were true, they wouldn’t pray to it or have an elaborate ritual that involved kissing it or running around it. After all, the Kaaba was originally a pagan shrine and there were actually multiple Kaabas scattered across Arabia before all but one were destroyed by Mohammed’s followers.
>>18346017Early Islam is one of the most well documented periods, why would you instead look at limited far away mentions all the way in Byzantium which would have no account on the happenings deep into the Arabian desert at hijaz
>>18346065Nestorian church records attest that Christians far outnumbered pagans in Arabia + the amount of coins with crosses on them that we’ve found.
>>18346080'Tis bias, plane and simplel.>>18346084>Nestorian church records attest that Christians far outnumbered pagans in Arabia When? Also, coins with crosses wouldn't be unusual because the arabs used byzantine money.
>>18346080>Early Islam is one of the most well documented periodsFrom secondary sources yes, written some 150 years after the events took place. I want primary sources>why would you instead look at limited far away mentions all the way in ByzantiumI don't know, you tell me. why isn't there any mention of Mecca before the advent of Islam?>which would have no account on the happenings deep into the Arabian desert at hijazIt was most likely written from oral recollection of the events that took place
>>18346077>If that were true, they wouldn’t pray to it We don't>or have an elaborate ritual that involved kissing it or running around it.Sunnah. You don't really have to do anything to the stone, but hajj is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for most that go, so the pious tend want to do as much extra deeds as possible when they get the chance. Even after the Qarmation assholes stole the stone, the ritual hajj continued as normal, which tells you just how "vital" it was to the whole thing.
>>18346108>why isn't there any mention of Mecca before the advent of Islam?Makoraba. Ptolemy couldn't spell.
>>18346108Mecca wasn’t mentioned before because it wasn’t a noteworthy place to be mentioned prior to Islam, as that’s where its importance comes from, and yes why would the thousands of contemporary companions most of who were illiterate write down something they lived through, the next generation the tabiuun were the ones asking the first gen about oral accounts to document everything about early Islam
>>18346040>once Mecca was conquered and the idols within destroyedfictitious event from the abbassid era literature which sought to place the figure of Muhammad as an equal (and even superior) to the figure of Abraham who destroyed his father's idols, which has a more central role in the quranic text. It was done solely to give Muhammad a central role in islam, which was not the case in the first century of islam under the Ummayads where Muhammad as a proper name was barely mentioned.It's like the story of Abraham supposedly founding Mecca, the "house of god" in Arabia. It's a translation of Jewish myths in a different setting to give legitimacy to Mecca as the spiritual center of the new, imperial religion, based on the original "house of god" which designated the temple in Jerusalem.biblical narrative:>Abraham ties his son Isaac on the "mount of the lord">sacrifice is prevented>the house of god (Solomon's temple) is built on said place (Psalms 24:3, Isaiah 2:3 etc.)islamic version:>Now it's Ishmael, (father of the arabs) who is destined for sacrifice>sacrifice is prevented>Abraham and his son build the bayt Allah, house of god somewhere in Arabia.It becomes obvious that the founding myth of Mecca is a distorted version of the biblical story aiming at creating a narrative
>>18346195>fictitious event from the abbassid era literatureWrong. The conquest of Mecca was a real event. There's dates and names and everything. Even down to the details of the order of "battle" (it was nearly bloodless) and who did what during the incident. Now that we're on the topic, what is the revisionist answer to the battles of Badr and Uhud? What do they think happened there?They never mention them, yet they're easily findable on a map or via satellite.
>>18346172>Mecca wasn’t mentioned before because it wasn’t a noteworthy place to be mentioned>Arabs still manage to levy forces of several thousands on both sides>The conquest of Mecca was a real event. There's dates and names and everythingYeah like the Arthurian legend names characters, toponyms and such in a prolific manner. That doesn't make it realToo much vagueness in sources indicate a likely forged narrative, but too much detail points at the same. Not saying the biography of Muhammad is completely fake, it's just a distorted account of real events.>Badr and UhudNot sure what part of it you're referring to, maybe the intervention of angels on the muslim side which is clearly fantasy
>>18346237>Not sure what part of it you're referring toAny of it. All of it. Do you even think those battles took place? If so, what happened there and why? And what are your sources?
>>18346195do you really think the jews are the ones telling the truth lol
>>18345889I don't really care about early Islam, per se. You should read The Sea of the Caliphs by Pichard for info about propaganda and the Abbasid, Umayyad, and Fatimid caliphates in the 9th-11th.
St J>>18346302ohn of Damascus (c. 675–749) viewed Muhammad as a "false prophet" and considered Islam a Christian heresy or superstition of the Ishmaelites rather than a new religion. Writing inDe Haeresibus(On Heresies), he argued that Muhammad devised his heresy after familiarizing himself with the Old and New Testaments and, "it seems," conversing with an Arian monk.
How come Muslims dont paint pictures of bears playing guitar anymore?
>>18346398>>18346399Murals of some decadent umayyad palace ruin. Those caliphs, with the notable exception of Umar ibn Abdul Aziz, were generally drunkards and corrupt profligates.
>>18346405yeah and that explains the bears playing guitar and other byzantine style frescoes because…???
>>18346246>Any of it. All of it. Do you even think those battles took placeNo. Because if you establish that Mecca did not exist at the time then the whole geographical frame is irrelevant and it becomes clear the events described are either fiction or as I said, distorted accounts of real events. It's a long and tedious work but we can trace back what happened.The theory I stick with is from Edouard Marie Gallez' doctoral thesis, "The Messiah and his prophet", itself based on previous work such as Patricia Crone, Michael Cook but also other sources such as eastern christians' view of the quranic text. TLDR but basically Islam started as a judeo-christian heresy in the region of Syria-Palestine under a sect known as the Nazarenes (mentioned as "an-nasara" in the quranic text), who preached to arabs of the region the project to take back the temple of Jerusalem (named Al masjid al-Haram in the quran), culminating in the capture of Jerusalem in 638 AD.So basically the whole Sira thing is a twisted account of events ranging roughly from the Persian-Byzantine war (602-628) to the capture of Jerusalem (638), and more importantly the Jewish revolt against Heraclius and events of Jerusalem 614 . Not even going into the geographical inconsistencies stuff but I'm open if you want me to elaborate on it.
>>18346329You're right, Islam was considered a heresy in its early years because that's what it was: a judeo-christian heresy that evolved into what is now Islam. The non "muslim" sources did not name them "muslim" or even pagans because the notion of "other" was not fully conceptualized. they had one foot in christianity one foot out.It's interesting how many concepts that were considered heretical in the christian west found their way in Islam later: rejection of the trinity, Jesus being fully human and not the son of god (although some verses from the quran name him "the word of god" etc.)>>18346329>he argued that Muhammad devised his heresy after familiarizing himself with the Old and New Testaments and, "it seems," conversing with an Arian monk.Not far, rather he was trained by the Nazarene judeo-christians, a theme which was covered up in the Sunni tradition by names and figures such as Bahira the christian monk, ot the "Ansars" with who Muhammad allies with (whose name come from Nazarean/ al-nasara)
>>18346484>>18346609>noMecca did exist at the time and only retards deny this. Who are these "nazarene" judeochristians? Who were their leaders? The Ansar were medinans and they have names. More revisionist nonsense. You ignore facts, then fill in the blanks with mystery and bs.
>>18346736>Mecca did exist at the time and only retards deny this.I dare you to find solid evidence of the existence of Mecca prior to the islamic era outside of Muhammad's biography which is basically the monotheist epic of Gilgamesh>>18346736>Who are these "nazarene" judeochristians?very few written sources left about them, due to the later redesign of Islam in the 8th century which sought to erase the jewish origins of early islam. Most likely destroyed once when the Abbassids took over and then again when the house of wisdom of Baghdad was destroyed in 1258.We know for sure their presence was attested in the Levant in the first centuries of christianity, as a sect who kept the jewish law but accepted Jesus as the messiah.Some of them appear only as suggestions of the original judeochristian environment of Muhammad in the islamic tradition, like Khadija (Muhammad's first wife) described as coming from a "nestorian christian" background in the sunna.
>>18346840>of the existence of Mecca prior to the islamic eraI'm talking about DURING the islamic era.>very few written sources left about them, due to the later redesign of Islam in the 8th century which sought to erase the jewish origins of early islam.Elaborate. What are these jewish origins? Which tribe was responsible for supposedly speeading islam? The Banu Qurayza? The Banu Qaynuka? Where did they operate?
>>18346860>Elaborate. What are these jewish origins?The original project of taking back the holy land and rebuilding the temple on the mount, and the subsequent indoctrination of arabs in it. If you analyse it without referring to the Sunna, that's what the message of the proto-quran is (mainly the short verses in the second half): that the end times are close and the "believers" have to take back the holy land and get rid of the "disbelievers" , "mushrikun" etc..Jewish apocalyptic movement. It can only be understood in connection with two events which were the Jewish capture of Jerusalem in 614 AD and the later capture by the arab-jewish force in 638 AD, and the broader context of the jewish diaspora in the first centuries AD following the sack of Jerusalem in 70 AD.it was actually the Quraysh who played the role here, but they were reported in historiographic sources as living in Syria Palestine and not the Arabian peninsula (Source: Narsai of Nisibis in his chronicle of 485 mentioned a "Qurays" tribe engaging in a raid in northern Syria). That's why some revisionist historians postulates that the hijra (exile of the ummah) took place from north to south, along the trade routes from Syria-Palestine to Yathrib and not south to north (from Mecca.)
>>18346917> If you analyse it without referring to the SunnaThen you have an incomplete picture. The sunnah gives a lot of context to the quran and events described within. >It can only be understood in connection with two events which were the Jewish capture of Jerusalem in 614 AD That was the persians>the later capture by the arab-jewish force in 638 AD,Who were the jews of this "arab-jewish" force? Who commanded them?
>>18346917>The original project of taking back the holy land and rebuilding the temple on the mountSo why didn't the muslims rebuild the temple on the mount themselves if that was their mandate?
>>18345942>they claim that pre-Islamic Arabia was entirely paganno the claim is that the majority didn't practice true monotheism>pagans were savages that buried female infants alive among other questionable practices.yes they did, if your tribe got raided you barie you daughter so she wouldn't be a slave>If Islam never existed, then Arabia would have just eventually converted to Christianity, most likely the Syriac rite.i don't think so
>>18346969>Who commanded them?Umar ibn al Khattab>>18346974>So why didn't the muslims rebuild the temple on the mount themselves if that was their mandate?They did. Upon conquering Jerusalem the arabs & jews built a temple described as a cube of stone and wood on the temple mount, even though the islamic tradition mostly forgot this memory by calling it "Umar's mosque"'Immediately, while running, they arrived at the place called Capitol [the Temple mount]. They took men with them, some of them by force, others of their own free will, in order to clean this place and build this cursed thing, destined for their prayer, which they call a midzgitha " (which would give the term "masjid" in arabic)-Letter from Archdeacon Theodore to the monastery of Saint-SabasWe can find echoes of this event in the figure of Kaab Al Ahbar, a jew converted to islam according to the islamic tradition .(From his wikipedia article:) " It is reported that when Umar marched into Jerusalem with an army, he asked Ka‘b: "Where do you advise me to build a place of worship?" Ka‘b indicated the Temple Rock, now a gigantic heap of ruins from the temple of Jupiter (-Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī (1992) , The History of al-Ṭabarī) [...] It was then that Umar ordered the rubbish on the Temple Rock to be removed by the Nabataeans, and after three showers of heavy rain had cleansed the Rock, he instituted prayers there. Until this day, the place is known as Qubbat al-Ṣakhra" (mistakenly called, as the dome of the rock is only built later under the reign of caliph Abd Al Malik. )that also explains the early mosques facing Jerusalem, as that was the first direction of prayer for the ummah, and not a random choice on behalf of Muhammad who switched to Mecca in the tradition.>inb4 isra and mi'raj
>>18347091>They did. Lol. So basically you're saying that the current structure, al aqsa, is the third temple. That's a new one to me.Umar ibn al khattab was a muslim Arab. If not Mecca, then where did he come from? And where do the jews in his "jewish arab army" fit in?>that also explains the early mosques facing Jerusalem, as that was the first direction of prayer for the ummah, and not a random choice on behalf of Muhammad who switched to Mecca in the tradition.Muhammadﷺ had already been dead for six years by the time Umar entered into Jerusalem. The qibla had long since been established as pointing towards the kaaba in Mecca.
>>18345889What you mention is old news, the real critical research is happening now, see: www.youtube.com/watch?v=HneJtZ9JMD0We are approaching absolute certainty that the Quran was originally meant as a trinitarian (yes you read that right) noahide book. Academics won't touch real issues with a ten-foot pole.
https://quranguideblog.wordpress.com/this guy takes the revisionism to new levels by claiming the words muhammad and isa arent talking about people at all but rather the message of god, as in, “muhammad is the messenger of god” should mean something like “praiseworthy is the message of god”, like the message itself is muhammad (praiseworthy/acclaimed/honored) he goes as far as to apply this to jesus too, that jesus is not a person at all but a name for the literal message conveyed to mary. this does not make mary a prophetess apparently. the muhammad one I can accept, but honestly cant wrap my head around the isa proposal.
>>18347546Who is 'we' and where can I read about this?
>>18347594Well for one this professor at the Catholic University of America is insistent the Quran and early Islam was influenced not by any „heretical” sect like Ebionites or whatever, but rather by the orthodox Christianity the encountered in an immediately around Arabia, like in Ethiopia. I don’t necessarily completely agree, but I can understand his position and pic related is a good read nonetheless.
>>18346405I will ask again: why were the bears playing guitar? depicting a bear playing a musical instrument is haram. Not only have the early Muslims painted living beings but they had anthropomorphized an animal and depicted it in a way as to glorify music, to make matter even worse. Theres a whole bunch of haram there. I will not accept>they liked to party too hard lolzas an excuse for the bears playing guitar. I want the intellectually honest answer as to why the caliphs thought paintings of bears playing guitar were a-ok. Do you really not understand what I am getting at here?
>>18347629Question: Do you know anything about the Umayyad so called caliphs? Like at all?Also, music itself isn't haram per se. Some of it can be though.
>>18347638Answer the question>they were degeneraTeis not an acceptable answer. Provide a proper answer for their theological lenience towards bear concert frescoes
>>18347709This is officially a Jordanian bear fresco forum now lol>they were degeneraTe is not an acceptable answer.I mean, do you think degens care all all that much about something being sinful or not? A silly bear painting isn't even that serious compared to other stuff the ummayads did.I dunno what else to tell ya. Why would anyone design a fresco of a bear playing guitar? Probably because they thought it looked cool or something idfk.
>>18347756There is no contemporary material or inscriptions that can be definitively identified as pre-Umayyad. There is no archeological evidence for any leader until “Servant of God” Mu’Awiya (pic related)>they wuz blasphemous No, it’s because they werent sinning or violating any Islamic legalisms at all because no such barriers actually existed, because the religion called Islam did not exist yet. That’s why it was okay to drink wine and paint byzantine frescoses of naked women and bears playing guitar, cause it was never not allowed up until that point. pic related, again
>>18346080Almost all the islamic sources we have on early Islam were written in the 8th Century. There are even evidence that the supposed year of death of Muhammad is wrong, given that a local syrian chronicle still mention Muhammad, the "King of the Ismaelites" leading the raids in the year 634
>>18347764>There is no contemporary material or inscriptions that can be definitively identified as pre-Umayyad.The Birmingham manuscript, for one. The topkapi museum also houses relics from the early Islamic era.>There is no archeological evidence for any leader until “Servant of God” Mu’Awiya The early caliphs, along with many other sahaba, are buried in Mecca, Medina and elsewhere. The Prophet himself is under the Green Dome.Your pic cites the Arab year as 42 AH. That just supports the traditional narrative.
>>18346405>Sources: Abbasids historiansThey had biased reasons to retcon Ummayads into bad muslims and degenerates: in truth probably a lot of the dogmas the apparently violated were established only during the Abbasids
>>18347140>Umar ibn al khattab was a muslim Arab. If not Mecca, then where did he come from?Arab population was not limited to Mecca. As I mentioned the Quraysh were reported in northern Syria as a bedouin arab tribe, and their presence is apparent in toponyms such as Khan-e Qurashiye (visible on this map of Syria in the 1920s). Note their geographical proximity with "Banu Israel/Yehudiye" (Nazarene jews)If we take into account the nazarene hypothesis then the story goes as follows (without going too much into detail):>Persian-byzantine war erupts>Jews revolt against the byzantine, seeking to restore the state of Israel>Nazarene jews and their Quraysh allies depart from Syria to join with the Jewish-persian force to take Jerusalem>Project of restoration of the third Temple backfires completely (christians massacred etc, I'll let you search about it) and jews are banned again (we can find reports of those events in the Quran)>Heraclius begins a campaign of conversion of jews to christianity as a sort of reprisal>Nazarene jews and their arab allies decide to flee from Syria to join their allies in Yathrib (Madina), out of reach of christian authority (Hijra)>A few years later the arab-jewish coalition departs from Madina and takes Jerusalem in 638 under Omar >>18347140>Muhammadﷺ had already been dead for six years by the time Umar entered into Jerusalem. The qibla had long since been established as pointing towards the kaaba in Mecca.Where I was trying to get to was that the qibla originally pointed towards Jerusalem because it was the Temple of Solomon, the OG Masjid, and it couldn't have been the shrine of Mecca which didn't exist at the time. But then when the Kaaba was founded you had several qiblas, (some facing Jerusalem, others Mecca,cf. Quranic geography) and so to justify this the authors of the sunna attributed the change to Muhammad even though he was already dead when this took place. Retconn writing basically
>>18347779>in truth probably a lot of the dogmas the apparently violated were established only during the AbbasidsExactly. One of the most notable examples being the ban on the representation of figures. This is why you see people and animals on the Ummayad murals, because Islam as we know it was not fully structured. It is to be put in relation with the iconoclast conflict in the eastern christian world (the ban on icons) , which began almost simultaneously as the ban on images among the muslimsIt is more of a social and religious phenomenon typical of the eastern world (which you can trace back to aniconic depiction of gods in antiquity) rather than a specific ban issued by Muhammad in the precise context of the "revelation" (for info Muhammad said those who make representations are to be punished on Judgment day)
>>18347910>Nazarene jews and their Quraysh allies depart from Syria to join with the Jewish-persian force to take JerusalemAgain, that was the persians. Muslims/Qurayshi weren't even involved in the 614 war.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_revolt_against_Heraclius How would the jews have even recruited "arab" allies to take jerusalem in the first place? Why would they retreat from Syria to Medina, a town like a thousand miles to the south? WHO were these supposed jews in Umar's army? Commanders would have names. And when was Umar ever in Syria?And are you still claiming that Al-Aqsa is the Third Temple? Your nazarene hypothesis makes no sense. >>18347932>This is why you see people and animals on the Ummayad murals, because Islam as we know it was not fully structured. It is to be put in relation with the iconoclast conflict in the eastern christian world (the ban on icons)Bollocks.
>>18347910>But then when the Kaaba was founded you had several qiblasWhen was that?
>>18347594>Who is 'we' and where can I read about this?It's not like I put a link to a video portraying almost everybody involved or anything...
>>18347778thats the best you got? wow you brown “people” really are retarded.
>>18348291>no argumentI accept your consnession
>>18348325because its not worth arguing. the claim that the birmingham quran is totes from the alleged life of a muhammad figure has been dismantled time and time again. the claim of the caliphs being buried somewhere is equally horseshit, >my house is built on shangri-la, no I will not show youits not worth talking about with you. ZERO EVIDENCE OF ANYONE BEFORE MU’AWIYA. ZERO.you can deny it, you can cope about it, you can argue it poorly, you can go away mad, it doesnt change anything. thats why the fuckin bears playing guitar on the wall: cause your religion didnt exist yet as you know it and they hadnt made up their stupid mafia rules yet. simple as.these 7th century cross-bearing coins contain the bismillah and muhammad. the coins are saying of the depicted ruler, “He is chosen in the name of god,” or “Let him be praised in the name of God.”>Blessed is he who comes in the name of the LordSpeaking of the lack of archeological evidence for anyone until „Servant of God” Mu’Awiya, go read the Dome of the Rock inscriptions replacing „Muhammad” with its literal meaning (Praiseworthy/Acclaimed/Honored). I will wait again like I waited for the bears playing guitar justification. You seem to be compltely incapable or unwilling to engage in non-dogmatic critical thought so I will not hold my breath.
