8 of 27 people found the following review helpful
Intersting to see the paralells in stories,
By A Customer
This review is from: The Origins of the Koran: Classic Essays on Islam's Holy Book (Hardcover)
I gave three stars not to indicate that it is great book of value but rather interesting to see the other side of view how they think, what they think and where they fail. It was interesting to read this book to see the paralells betwwen the religions. I do not see the pount in comparing the ideas and stories in three major religions and claiming that Islam is a copy from the other religions and therefore has no value. etc. After all islam does not reject those religions but does not accept as they are either. If you do not believe in Mohammed why should you believe in others. after all at least we know Mohammed lived yet there is no Scientific proof that Jesus or Moses lived. I read it with joy because short of reading the other Bibles this book gave me compariosn in short time, made me familiar with other religions easliy. If the objective was to prove that it is a lie, it failed, how can you prove a thing as a lie if your means is also potentially a lie.If you are looking for reasons not to believe in prophets at all than read it, they all appears to be story but if you want to see the claims of the other side, than it is interesting but there are better things to read.
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-4 of 4 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 28 Jan 2011 09:19:48 GMT
S. U. Larsen says:
"the other bibles"?
Posted on 24 Feb 2014 13:49:56 GMT
There is less and less support for the idea that Mohammed, as outlined in the Hadith (and to lesser extent in the Qur'an - he's only mentioned by name 4 times) ever existed. Historical method determines that he, in some pre-mythological figure, was probably some warrior. A warlord called Mohammed was mentioned, once, by a bishop in Jerusalem, in the 6th century. Apart from that it takes until about 680AD for his name to pop up again, and this time on a coin in present day Iraq. Before then.... nothing....
Noting that Moses (yes, he was probably a similar mythological person - not even all the might of the Israeli archaeological expedition can find any evidence of the Exodus) and Jesus didn't exist is pretty much irrelevant. Jesus most definitely did (no, I'm not a Christian), too many documents exist apart from the New Testament that attest to that, plus all the other archaeological evidence that surrounds it, e.g. names of emperors, locations, events and so on. Compare this to the Qur'an... no evidence of any of the battles, none of the cities stated exist, the Mosques referred to weren't built, and so on... it's fable, at best. Most likely, scholars conclude, it was written to justify the barbaric behaviour of the Arab conquerors, who, in the shadow of the plague and many wars, managed to subjugate swathes of the Middle East.
In reply to an earlier post on 27 Jul 2014 05:10:13 BDT
Mr. Steven C. Watson says:
Jesus most probably didn't, no contemporary or near- contemporary documents attesting to him exist that we know of. That includes the New Testament. See Dr Richard Carrier, Proving History and On the Historicity of Jesus.
In reply to an earlier post on 8 Sep 2016 22:56:15 BDT
Amazon Customer says:
There's a few none Islamic mentions of an Arabic prophet in the 7th century beyond that though. Within the Islamic tradition there are also unflattering representations of Muhammed. Such as the Satanic Verses. This could be that the folk stories have some truth or that the people who had an agenda against Muhammed got to voice that much. Aside from that there's clear fabrications that today's Muslim's accept, such as Muhammed supposedly predicting the conquests of Istanbul and Rome while being the handful of persecuted early Muslims starving in the desert.
There's theories on who authored the Quran. Muhammed employed poets, had Christian slaves and had some religiously progressive friends. The differences in quality of writing, suggests different authors. You at times have an eloquent Quran and a Muhammed who is loyal to his wife and incredibly charitable and modest and at other times you witness a crudely violent Quran and a Muhammed who is happy to enslave, massacre and rape. Those 2 characters are massively at odds with each other. It could be there was more than 1 Muhammed. I've read the names 'Muhammed' and 'Ali' are translations in some parts for 'savour' and 'prophet' There could have been the religious humble Muhammed of Mekah who perhaps died through persecution. And another warlord Muhammed of Medina who looked to create an alliance of Muslims, Jews and Christians knowing it would outpower the polytheists.
It is very unlikely that Arabia changed from poltheism to monotheism so quickly. It is much more likely there were many monothesic religions and tribes united under Muhammed to gain power. The relative unknown Sabians could have been pre-Islamic monolithic religion active within Arabia, as was Judaism and Christianity. It's assumed Muhammed was preaching to the polytheists, but to an extent he could have been preaching to the converted who were already following monotheism. Ultimately and unless he was a myth, he conquered all of Arabia. If that's the case he's almost certainly a calculating individual looking to use the best tactics to gain power.
I'm not convinced Jesus existed though, there are no none Christian references and parts of his story are mirrored in earlier fables.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›