Will the real Islam please stand up

[England my lionheart]

Or

So uthman the 3rd caliph added/changed the Quran into a more conservative script?.

Or the many hadiths that paint a very cruel picture of mp?

 

[J2hapydna]

So uthman the 3rd caliph added/changed the Quran into a more conservative script?.

Can you please elaborate? I'm not sure what conservatism has to do with anything. All the true disciples of MP agreed and ratified the text of the Uthmanic Koran, including Ali.

The problem that MP and his true disciples such as Abu Bakr, Umer, Othman and Ali faced was that a large number of Arabs, including the most powerful ones such as Abu Sufiyan and Muawiya adopted Islam near the twilight of MP's ministry. Many of these stragglers adopted Islam as fait-accomplice, as everyone else had already converted and they didn't want to be pariahs. They also converted as they saw a path to great riches and power. They could see how MP's armies were poised to defeatthe biggest and richest empires in the world, ( the Roman and the Persian). So they plotted to loot and plunder these empires by taking control of the Islamic empire and hijacking the original faith and its peaceful message. They thought they were very clever when they buried the evidence of where MP was described in the Bible by persecuting followers of the Bible including the original faithful followers of MP described in 3:199 and shutting them up

The Umayyad plan of substituting the Sharia for the Bible had almost worked until scientists and archaeologists began digging up the past. Now we can all see what the Umayyads did. They concealed the truth.

Up until the age of Uthman, the first order of business was preserving the Koran. The next order of business was recording where MP was described in the Bible. Ali was working on this aspect of Islam, but his life was cut short when he was assassinated. The Umayyads had no interest in continuing the work of Ali. In fact they weren't even interested in recording MP as a prophet even on their coins, seals and inscriptions etc.

The Quran clearly says that the hypocrites plot strategies, but Allah knows what they plot and so He plots counter plots. In this case the Umayyads plotted to bury the evidence. So Allah plotted back by saving the evidence in places from where scientists could recover it.

 

[LuisDantas]

Kind of ironic that most Muslims complain about the supposed Imperialism of the Crusades, of "the West", and of Israel yet their Prophet and the Rashidun are apparently only doing God's Will by conquering lands left and right.

And then it is the fault of the late converts during Muhammad's life that they realize how the system works and choose to play according to it.

 

[J2hapydna]

Kind of ironic that most Muslims complain about the supposed Imperialism of the Crusades, of "the West", and of Israel yet their Prophet and the Rashidun are apparently only doing God's Will by conquering lands left and right.

And then it is the fault of the late converts during Muhammad's life that they realize how the system works and choose to play according to it.

MP and the Rasidun offered peaceful coexistence to both the Christian Byzantine and the Axumite Empires. The Axumite Empire accepted so no war was waged on them. The Byzantines rejected the offer so war was waged on them

The Byzantine Empire was being led by a a cruel, lying, stealing psychopathic megalomaniac who mercilessly persecuted the Jews to near extinction and stole all the Persian treasures from their temples and palaces after conquering Persia. He was a ruthlessly deceptive man who was about to destroy the Egyptian faith (Coptic church) next. He had to be stopped.

It is worth noting that MP's invasion of the Byzantine Empire actually began right after Heraclius broke his promise to the Jews and passed an unprecedented evil order to murder all Jews in the Empire. After the Rashidun defeated Heraclius, they repealed his cruel order and also allowed the Jews to return to Jerusalem

The suggestion that MP and the Rasidun wanted to murder all Jews is anothe Umayyad fabrication of history. If the Rasidun wanted the Jews dead all they had to do was look the other way and allow Heraclius' order to stand. Yet it is a well known fact of history that Caliph Umer repealed the law to kill all Jews and allowed the Jews to return to Jerusalem. In addition Caliph Umer was the first ruler since the time of Jesus to recognize the Jewish exilarchs as princes by allowing them to wear their signet rings as rulers of their own nation. Furthermore, Ali had settled in Kufa where most Jews from Yemen had settled next to other Jewish towns on the outskirts of Baghdad where the exilarchs lived. He had warm relations with the Jews of Baghdad to the point that when Muawiya attacked Ali, rather than create mischief and help Muawiya defeat the caliph and weaken Islam the Jews actually aided Caliph Ali. It is unlikely the Jews would be aiding the butcher of Arab Jews described in the Arab tales and allowing him to live with them

These are once again secular facts that contradict the Umayyad stories. We already know the Umayyads were liars as they also tried to conceal the truth about the events that help show MP fulfilled Isaiah 19 and Matt 24. So this is just further proof that the Umayyads were making up lies about MP to provide religious cover and justification for their own cruel policies and ambitions.

 

[England my lionheart]

Thanks for your input,uthman/othman was a companion and compiled the quran/Koran or standardised it,Abu bakr was a companion too and some of his ahadith paint a cruel picture of MP,even the sahih ones.

I have heard Muslims say MP is in the song of solomon,theres no proof of this but if you have archaeological/scientific proof he was in the bible it would be interesting to see it.

Typing from my phone,its a chore.

 

[YmirGF]

MP and the Rasidun offered peaceful coexistence to both the Christian Byzantine and the Axumite Empires. The Axumite Empire accepted so no war was waged on them. The Byzantines rejected the offer so war was waged on them

The Byzantine Empire was being led by a a cruel, lying, stealing psychopathic megalomaniac who mercilessly persecuted the Jews to near extinction and stole all the Persian treasures from their temples and palaces after conquering Persia. He was a ruthlessly deceptive man who was about to destroy the Egyptian faith (Coptic church) next. He had to be stopped.

It is worth noting that MP's invasion of the Byzantine Empire actually began right after Heraclius broke his promise to the Jews and passed an unprecedented evil order to murder all Jews in the Empire. After the Rashidun defeated Heraclius, they repealed his cruel order and also allowed the Jews to return to Jerusalem

The suggestion that MP and the Rasidun wanted to murder all Jews is anothe Umayyad fabrication of history. If the Rasidun wanted the Jews dead all they had to do was look the other way and allow Heraclius' order to stand. Yet it is a well known fact of history that Caliph Umer repealed the law to kill all Jews and allowed the Jews to return to Jerusalem. In addition Caliph Umer was the first ruler since the time of Jesus to recognize the Jewish exilarchs as princes by allowing them to wear their signet rings as rulers of their own nation. Furthermore, Ali had settled in Kufa where most Jews from Yemen had settled next to other Jewish towns on the outskirts of Baghdad where the exilarchs lived. He had warm relations with the Jews of Baghdad to the point that when Muawiya attacked Ali, rather than create mischief and help Muawiya defeat the caliph and weaken Islam the Jews actually aided Caliph Ali. It is unlikely the Jews would be aiding the butcher of Arab Jews described in the Arab tales and allowing him to live with them

These are once again secular facts that contradict the Umayyad stories. We already know the Umayyads were liars as they also tried to conceal the truth about the events that help show MP fulfilled Isaiah 19 and Matt 24. So this is just further proof that the Umayyads were making up lies about MP to provide religious cover and justification for their own cruel policies and ambitions.

Nice spin you have going there. I'm sure some folks might even believe this narrative.

 

[YmirGF]

I have heard Muslims say MP is in the song of solomon,theres no proof of this but if you have archaeological/scientific proof he was in the bible it would be interesting to see it.

There is not a shred of proof or even evidence to back up the assertion beyond the lunatic hot air coming from many Islamic 'scholars'.

Typing from my phone,its a chore.

I feel for you.

 

[England my lionheart]

Nice spin you have going there. I'm sure some folks might even believe this narrative.

How many times have we witnessed such claims but the evidence never follows.

 

[LuisDantas]

If the very generation that knew Muhammad in person and supported him on his rise to power, despite enormous efforts and many pleas of allegiance towards each other, had such a hard time avoiding the craving for opposing each other in often violent ways, I just don't understand why Muslims would expect the non-Muslims of 1400 years later to be impressed.

 

[J2hapydna]

Thanks for your input,uthman/othman was a companion and compiled the quran/Koran or standardised it,Abu bakr was a companion too and some of his ahadith paint a cruel picture of MP,even the sahih ones.

You are welcome

I have heard Muslims say MP is in the song of solomon, theres no proof of this but if you have archaeological/scientific proof he was in the bible it would be interesting to see it.

Typing from my phone,its a chore.

I have not claimed he is in the Song of Solomon. I claimed he is the one in Isaiah 19 and Matt 24.

The only people who place full faith in all the Hadiths in Sahih Bukhari are the Ahle Hadith only i.e. the wahabi. These are your brothers who helped you win the peace dividend by sacrificing more than 100,000 Afghan lives to help you defeat your greatest enemy the Soviet Union without the west shedding hardly any precious Christian blood. The west gave them visas to come live with you in gratitude. They are your war heroes. So enjoy them. A 100,000 jihadis didn't die for you, so you could collect your peace dividend for free. But I digress

The majority of Sunni (Ahle Sunnah) such as Hanafi don't accept every so called Sahih Hadith in Sahih Bukhari etc., as 100% true. Perhaps you should find out how the different sects in Islam actually work.

Also, the Hadith of Abu Bakr wasn't written in the time of Abu Bakr. So how do you know he said it?

Perhaps you could also learn when the Hadiths were complied. Then you would know they were written during or after the Umayyads rose to power (not before). However, I just explained who the Umayyads were and why things written in their age are unreliable. So if you disagree, then please share your evidence, but you haven't addressed any of the points I raised.

 

[J2hapydna]

If the very generation that knew Muhammad in person and supported him on his rise to power, despite enormous efforts and many pleas of allegiance towards each other, had such a hard time avoiding the craving for opposing each other in often violent ways, I just don't understand why Muslims would expect the non-Muslims of 1400 years later to be impressed.

I don't expect you to be impressed with what is in the Sharia. Most of it was created by in the closet pagans etc such as the Umayyads. What you need to be impressed by is the secular evidence for how MP fulfilled Isaiah 19 and Matt 24 if anything.

 

[J2hapydna]

Nice spin you have going there. I'm sure some folks might even believe this narrative.

Thanks, just shared it with a Christian moderator on one of the largest Christian Apologetics forums. She thought it genuinely made sense. People didn't immediately accept the heliocentric model either, even though the evidence was there. The secular evidence is now in place to question what the Umayyads did too. In the next decade I think we will see a profound change as the new generation accepts the evidence without preconceived notions and prejudices that the current generation has.

 

[YmirGF]

In the next decade I think we will see a profound change as the new generation accepts the evidence without preconceived notions and prejudices that the current generation has.

In the US and Canada we often refer to this trend as the "dumbing down of America".

 

[J2hapydna]

If the very generation that knew Muhammad in person and supported him on his rise to power, despite enormous efforts and many pleas of allegiance towards each other, had such a hard time avoiding the craving for opposing each other in often violent ways, I just don't understand why Muslims would expect the non-Muslims of 1400 years later to be impressed.

You are right the Arab historians who wrote in the age of the Umayyads and later, describe stories in which MP inflicted unspeakable cruelties on innocent people for not following his religion.

So the question is who were the Umayyads? How well did they understand MP and his message? Were they psychopathic liars who would have distorted the truth about MP to find religious cover for their own criminal behaviors? I think there is considerable secular evidence that suggests they were psychopathic. If you wish I will share this evidence with you later. Just let me know

For now, let's take the verse about crucifying those who insult the prophet and Allah and chopping off their opposite foot and hand. I would think this type of punishment would have be reserved for the type of person who didn't just refuse to adopt Islam, but expressed animosity towards MP. It would be for not just those who verbally assaulted him, but also perhaps tried to physically assault and torment MP. Perhaps, not just those who physically tormented him, but also perhaps, fought wars against MP. Also, for not just those who fought wars against MP but also tried to personally kill and perhaps hired assassins to target kill MP in those wars. I think most people will agree that if such a person was caught, he would probably be killed


However, let's assume that he not just hired assassins in war but also organized a group of people to assassinate MP in peace time. Also, not just organized a group but also perhps tried to personally track down and kill MP. I think at this point most people would agree that if there was such a person who had tried to do these things to MP, the leader of his city, that he would be justified in putting to death such a person.

Some people may say, it would be okay to put to death, but not a painful death of crucifixion and chopping off hand and foot. That would be barbaric.

Well, let me tell you that Muawiya and his father Abu Sufiyan were guilty of all the above crimes according to their own historians. So did MP put them to death or cleaning the toilets for the rest of their lives? The answer is, no. The man forgave them. Later, Muawiya would rise to become leader of the Empire. In fact Muawiya's son Caliph Yazid, went down in history as the person who killed over a thousand companions of the prophet in Madina; and killed the grandson of MP.

So it is hard for me to believe that if the prophet didn't kill this cruel father and son duo after they were captured in a war that he was killing and torturing anyone. At the very least this proves that just because the Koran says something is a punishment for a certain crime it doesn't mean it has to be executed. Clearly MP forgave this duo and didn't punish them with sentences that the Koran stipulated.
A

 

[J2hapydna]

In the US and Canada we often refer to this trend as the "dumbing down of America".

Wait, accepting secular evidence is called dumbing down of America?

 

[YmirGF]

Wait, accepting secular evidence is called dumbing down of America

But it's just a new spin on old ideas. True, they could become mainstream, but the ideas would have to be compelling.

I will say that if these are your own ideas I am quite impressed. If not your own who is your main influence?

 

[J2hapydna]

But it's just a new spin on old ideas. True, they could become mainstream, but the ideas would have to be compelling.

I will say that if these are your own ideas I am quite impressed. If not your own who is your main influence?

Yes the idea is completely mine. I read the Bible several times in college and noticed how Isaiah 19 seem to be describing MP with the Plague and uniting of Egyptians and Assyrians on the border. Then I began digging for details and discovered the story of Onias IV. However, there were still several gaps in the story. For example, in those days nobody believed Arabs could be descendants of Abraham. Also, there was no evidence of trees dying, darkness falling upon the earth and temperatures falling that Matt 24 suggests. All that began to change with Y DNA studies by Michael Hammer at U of Arizona and the book Catastrophe by David Keys. At that point the idea moved from a religious speculation to a secular mystery. As I kept digging I studied the DSS. This helped me bridge theological gaps. Then, I became friends with a Jewish historian who was coming to similar conclusions, but from historical sources, secular, Jewish and Islamic. When I shared what I knew from Keys' book, DSS and Hammer's research we both knew this was much bigger than either of us had imagined. The rest is history

 

[YmirGF]

Yes the idea is completely mine. I read the Bible several times in college and noticed how Isaiah 19 seem to be describing MP with the Plague and uniting of Egyptians and Assyrians on the border. Then I began digging for details and discovered the story of Onias IV. However, there were still several gaps in the story. For example, in those days nobody believed Arabs could be descendants of Abraham. Also, there was no evidence of trees dying, darkness falling upon the earth and temperatures falling that Matt 24 suggests. All that began to change with Y DNA studies by Michael Hammer at U of Arizona and the book Catastrophe by David Keys. At that point the idea moved from a religious speculation to a secular mystery. As I kept digging I studied the DSS. This helped me bridge theological gaps. Then, I became friends with a Jewish historian who was coming to similar conclusions, but from historical sources, secular, Jewish and Islamic. When I shared what I knew from Keys' book, DSS and Hammer's research we both knew this was much bigger than either of us had imagined. The rest is history

I would very much like to read anything you have that is more in-depth. Do you have anything you could PM me?

 

[England my lionheart]

I have not claimed he is in the Song of Solomon. I claimed he is the one in Isaiah 19 and Matt 24.

The only people who place full faith in all the Hadiths in Sahih Bukhari are the Ahle Hadith only i.e. the wahabi. These are your brothers who helped you win the peace dividend by sacrificing more than 100,000 Afghan lives to help you defeat your greatest enemy the Soviet Union without the west shedding hardly any precious Christian blood. The west gave them visas to come live with you in gratitude. They are your war heroes. So enjoy them. A 100,000 jihadis didn't die for you, so you could collect your peace dividend for free. But I digress

The majority of Sunni (Ahle Sunnah) such as Hanafi don't accept every so called Sahih Hadith in Sahih Bukhari etc., as 100% true. Perhaps you should find out how the different sects in Islam actually work.

Also, the Hadith of Abu Bakr wasn't written in the time of Abu Bakr. So how do you know he said it?

Perhaps you could also learn when the Hadiths were complied. Then you would know they were written during or after the Umayyads rose to power (not before). However, I just explained who the Umayyads were and why things written in their age are unreliable. So if you disagree, then please share your evidence, but you haven't addressed any of the points I raised.

The claim he is in the song of Solomon is like he is the one in Mathew seems the same to me,no evidence,it seems desperate to make someone fit into another mythology.

We agree on some parts,religion back then was a way to stock up on war booty,I have no faith in prophets or religion.

You say the real Islam is the one before the ummayads,ok ill go along with the ummayads were the bad guys but what about the satanic verses?.

So all I'm asking for is the "real Islam" whether they are good or bad and not use the "no true Scotsman dodge".

 

[J2hapydna]

I would very much like to read anything you have that is more in-depth. Do you have anything you could PM me?

The problem is that this is a vast topic that draws on many different areas of secular study. We are talking about changing an entire narrative of our understanding of history of the period based on secular scientific studies in the age that Islam was born. To go into depth would require creating several books that answer all the objections that Muslims, Christians and Jews could raise as well as secular historians. In other words, it requires responding to everything that Judaism, Christianity and Orthodox Islam has to say as well as exposing bunk in history as well as learning about the science of population genetics and archaeological discoveries that are touched upon by David Keys in Catastrophe and Hammer in population genetics and supporting materials by National Geo. and other works of credible research in these fields, not to mention opinions of scholars on the Dead Sea Scrolls. It isn't something that can be done in a quick 100 or 200 page study. It takes serious time to understand in depth each part of the evidence.

As one Christian moderator who is an expert in Islam on the Apologetics website put it, after 500 posts or so, "The bad news is that it takes longer than a few minutes for any other person to understand WXYZ's system" She also points out "The good news is that ... he has filtered out all the worst parts of classical Islam because he is a far better person than the wicked men portrayed in it."