On Islam

susy7

Jedi Master
On Islam
Hello, I would like to know the opinion of Cassiopéenns on this debate between Shiism and Sunnism. The story after the death of the Prophet is quite troubling, indeed this one before his death decides to say that they are the people that must follow the Muslims, it is Ali, his daughter Fatima Az-Zahra , of his son "al Husayn as well as his friend of the time Ali, whom the Shiites worship, we also know that at the death of Mohamed, all those whom he had designated were all killed by the Caliph, at the 4th Ali begins to clean up, but by treason he is murdered cowardly All the writings and all the "true" religion of Mohamed have been destroyed and since then, Islam and these Hadith come from "accounts" of so-called listening , the Islma we know comes from a "Sunni Islam", of which the biggest book is "Saih al Muslim" (meaning "true Muslim"), in this area and knowing that the Shiites have been the most persecuted. is this one closer to what the Prophet taught?
 
Sahih Muslim means the Sahih of Muslim (a name of a person). It's a shortened title. The other book sunnism is based upon is Sahih el Bukhari.
 
I don't know. I am more familiar with Sunni Islam. Practice styles between he two camps are very different. As far as I know, both camps use Koran and Hadiths for guidance. I have read Koran several times, each time taking something, or seeing something different from it. I'm not interested in reading Hadiths. I intend at some point to re-read Koran. I expect it to be interesting in a different way, since I have have learned something about STO/STS, control systems, etc.
 
Koran is a strange text because it's a patchwork of different texts compiled randomly. To understand how the actual Muslim behave, it's more useful to know something about the hadith/sira/sunna that's been created during the Abasside period because that's what regulate the doctrine mostly.
 
I doubt that the Cs would be especially willing to answer such a question, since a strict answer, if applicable, favoring one of the two parties could have emotionally destructive effects on the supporters of the other. I believe that the likelihood of developing a significant brotherhood/solidarity between some major Middle Eastern Sunni and Shia (or Shiite) players has been increasing, and this can make a possibly strict answer(s) to your question a bit more sensitive and, perhaps, withholdable.

Although I’m not sure if there actually is a strict answer favoring one of the parties to be given by the Cs, I’d like to share some of my opinions on the issue, which can be significantly prejudiced since, by family, I’m an Anatolian Alevi, related to but also different from (Syrian) Alawism/Nusayrism, but eventually also considered by many as an offshoot of Shia Islam.

My likely prejudiced answer is that Shia is more legitimate from a certain point of view but what does it matter when Sunnism is the overwhelming majority in terms of population, and a great majority of them haven’t embraced Sunnism by a very conscious, knowledgeable choice. Also, most of Sunnis are led to believe that Sunnism is inquestionably Islam itself rather than a choice, and Shia, accordingly, is just a heresy. Besides, being a Sunni doesn’t mean that one is necessarly misled in terms of religion or ethics. It can be argued that this is just a matter of perspective about the history of Islam, and there are also serious debates on this matter between various Sunni people. Fortunatelly, many Sunnis are aware of the “historical and ethical matter” and have a sincere and ethically right attitude about it, as I see it.

From what I feel or understand, the historical matter is that, between Ali and his decisive opponents in many terms, Ali and his sincere followers were comparably more on the STO path, and his most devoted opponents and their submitters were relatively more on the STS path, by choice. Ali’s most significant opponent, or enemy, Muawiyah, was almost the “standard-bearer” of the universal STS path, I think. Shiism challenges all Muslims to be aware of what was really experienced between Ali and his opponents, as it was somewhat the battle between Good and Evil, and choose side. Shia means “followers” of Ali (and, therefore, of the Good, acording to its own understanding).

It can be said that the war hasn’t ended yet but Evil soon had the upper hand in the process because a great majority of Muslims didn’t support Ali in his battle with certain evil circles, and this is partly because, as it can be expected, the Evil applied a very strong pressure on Muslim masses to deter them from supporting Ali. But I don’t think that the success of Evil leaders were the only reason for this result. Masses aren’t sufficiently innocent, or sufficiently positively polarized, either, as this can always be witnessed in general. Ali, his family and supporters suffered very tragic events. And I suspect that Ali himself wasn’t perfect either, or somehow became corrupted in this or that way because I tend to believe that, otherwise, those extremely tragic things (primarily including Ali’s own way of being killed, and the most notorious ‘Karbala’ event) could be avoided, or would happen in much lesser extents.

I also suspect that non-perfection of Islam, in the first place, made Ali’s predicament kind of unavoidable. I mean, Islam or Quran aren’t exactly the path or textbook of universal STO, after all. Although I don’t personally suspect that Muhammad, just like Ali, was a STO-oriented “wanderer”, and his bringing Islam to that region/nation made some revolutionary good effects but it was not perfectly positive-oriented and it was almost inevitably corrupted very fast too. I believe that what the Cs told about the Moses’ story also applied to Muhammad and Ali. The helper comes with good intentions but the masses are not very innocent, and they are inclined to be easily influenced by evilistic pressures by dark exploiters. And then helpers themselves become desperate and are degenerated to some extent. The preferences or non-preferences of masses tend to determine the story to a great extent, I think.

Most Shias have an acute awareness of Ali’s historical and ethical struggle, but probably most Sunnis have historically been led to believe that the “historical issue” is not that serious, and that ethically and politically siding with Ali is not a religious or ethical necessity. So, most of them have been being led to miss the great ethical issue between good and evil, but instead just care to fulfil the “formal” religious duties as commanded by Allah through the Quran and Muhammad.

But this certainly doesn’t equalize Shias with good, and Sunnis with evil. But relatively, the Shia “thesis” is somewhat more legitimate and, compared with the Sunni majority, Shias have been more sensitive and reactive against evidently evil forces in the Middle East and partially around the world, I think.

The general situation in the Islamic world / Middle East, and especially the situation in Palestine (which is almost exclusively Sunni) is kind of a mirror showing an internal disingenuity problem of Sunnism. But I think Shia Muslims are not necessarily the perfect examples of solidarity and brotherhood, either. And there are many important and apparently positive-oriented Sunni figures in the history of Islam including in science, Sufism, etc.

Islam’s serious integrity and sincerity problems attracted the trouble of Israel / Zionism, and the USA, and ironically these troubles are also what have been forcing Sunni and Shia people to cooperate. Especially some Palestinian Muslim groups are aware that the support of Shia forces have been very vital for them, that they must cooperate to stop Israeli tortures. The trouble created by global dark powers is also an important part of what forces various nations to stop fighting each other and unite against the common enemy apparently.

As for Turkey, I’m also hopeful about Erdogan’s certain initiatives in this matter. He comes from a strictly Sunni background, which he has been openly displaying in his various policies and behaviours. A significant part of the supporters of his political party, AKP, have an obvious hatred against Shias, Alevis, Leftists, Iran, Russia, etc, which they don’t have against the USA (and mostly at the level of lipservice against Israel)! Although Erdogan was exactly one of them, he somehow began to change in this matter in recent years. He’s sincerely trying to develop the relationships with Russia, Iran, China, their allies, etc. despite the opposite tendencies of an important part (at least a quarter, I’d say) of the AKP’s supporters. I think Erdogan’s attitude, if it continues, can gradually lead to a solidarity between various masses from differing or clashing ideologies in Turkey, and also to a disclosure of those who are against the best interests of the nation within the context of those ideologies.
 
...we also know that at the death of Mohamed, all those whom he had designated were all killed by the Caliph, at the 4th Ali begins to clean up, but by treason he is murdered cowardly All the writings and all the "true" religion of Mohamed have been destroyed


Hi susy7,

Personally I've always found Mohamed an intriguing character, on one hand regarding the preeminent place 'dreams' hold in his story and secondly that he is commonly identified as championing the sovereignty of women - which somehow doesn't seem reflected in the visible modern functioning of Islam (as observed by infidels such as me anyway)?

It's interesting that you mention that all the 'true' writings have been destroyed too, I wasn't aware of that - although probably shouldn't be surprised.

Coincidentally I had a dream recently that featured an exotic lady named 'Shebah' that was followed by receiving the word Aaliyah - which is apparently the feminine form of Ali and both meaning high or exalted - and I'm glad of it because I'd never thought to look further into historic Islam.

Something that struck me immediately was that 'Ali' is often identified as being the first / only person born inside the Ka'bah - which is obviously extremely holy - and after looking into the name Shebah (often translated as seven and/or wise woman) in relation to Aaliyah, it didn't take long to discover that in pre-Islamic times the original female guardians/priestesses of the Ka'bah (apparently 7 of) were called 'daughters of Shebah!

Replaced in modern times by male attendants (surprise surprise) known as Beni Shaybah or ‘Sons of the Old Woman’!

At which point things got really interesting discovering that Kaabou, Ka'bah, Kaibah can mean 'Maiden / Virgin' in Arabic, that Kaabu / Chaabou was a Nabatean goddess and that the pre-Koranic deity was an ancient triple goddess named Al’Lat (and also Ali'lat - which could be the root of Allah, Ali one would assume?) and whose maiden aspect was named Q're , Qure.

With some scholars postulating that 'Q're' is not only the precursor to Kore / Persephone ( also 'maiden' but in Greek ) but that it is also the root of the name Qur'an, which leads to the Koran translating to the 'Word of Qure'.

Identifying also that Mohammed's tribesmen were the Koreshites.

And it was about here that my 'C's antenna went off -


A: And who was "Kore?"

Q: (L) Was this Abraham's daughter?

A: It was the last living member of the Perseid family.

Q: (L) Was it a male or female?

A: Female.


Starting to realise where Laura might have been going with this -


Q: (L) Who was Hagar the Egyptian?
A: Princess of Egypt.
Q: (L) Was she Sarah's maid?
A: No.
Q: (L) Was she Sarah's daughter?
A: Right nurture to.
Q: (L) What do you mean? I don't understand.
A: Sara's daughter by Akhenaten.


Not having previously been aware of the intimate relationship between Abraham, Hagar and the Black Stone of the Ka'bah... :-[

And in light of the Shebah / Solomon connection makes the Song of Songs interesting?

"I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon."

Considering the commonly applied connections between Hagar and Lilith..... and Adam but I digress.


Q: (L) Going back to this person - the last living member of the Perseid family - who was handed over by Abraham in his Jacob persona to someone else, who was this person handed over to and why?

A: For protection from the fury of "Helen."

Q: (L) So, there is a reflection of that in the story of Hagar the Egyptian. Who was she handed over to?

A: The "Dragon Slayers."


And the meaning of Perseids now a little clearer, taking into account the purported extraterrestrial origin of the 'Mother Stone' - housed in the corner of the 'Maiden'.

The Perseids are a prolific meteor shower associated with the comet Swift–Tuttle. The meteors are called the Perseids because the point from which they appear to hail lies in the constellation Perseus.

Also the Mother Stone - known as Kubaba, Kuba or Kube, and often linked inextricably with the great goddess Cybele (Kybela) - a black stone - apparently summoned from 'her' Anatolian sanctuary (on Sibylline instruction) to Rome circa 205 BCE, as protection from 'rocks falling from the sky'. But of whose current whereabouts is now uncertain.


So with Mer, Ka, Ab, and Ba, we have a cube made up of the principle parts of the etheric self, and housing a stone. Soul stone? Mother stone?

A: By god, she's got it!

Q: (L) Okay, we've got the soul or mother stone. Or the mother of all stones. Now that we have a definition, what was it?

A: The Matriarch Stone.

Q: (L) Is the Matriarch Stone the one in Mecca?

A: Symbolism reigns supreme here.


And discovering all the symbolism related to the number seven (regarding the Kaaba) and the historic reports of 'ecstatic behaviour' demonstrated following contact with the stone, one can't help but think of -


A: Perceval was knighted in the court of seven.

Q: The court of seven what?

A: Swords points signify crystal transmitter of truth beholden.


Making one suspect that 'Kore' may have been the last to come in contact with the 'Holy Grail' ?


Q: (L) We were making some theories about this object that Vincent Bridges was looking for - the Ark of the Covenant, or the Holy Grail. I believe that we understand that this is an object that is of great usefulness, some kind of lensing device. Is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Is this something that the STS groups - yeah, we know everybody on earth is STS, but I mean the heavy duty ones - had at one time and then lost, or lost control of?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) How did they lose it?

A: It was not so much "lost" as it was "retrieved" and put away for safe keeping.

Q: (R & L) Who retrieved it?

A: 4th density STO mission.

Q: ...(R) I was wondering about the possible positive uses of the device?

A: Multiple. In ancient times this object was called the Gift of God. It was used to aid in the manifestation of all things needful for existence.

Q: (A) Manifestation? (R) That sounds like Merkabah. The Matriarch Stone. The Mother Stone. (A) So it can do all kinds of things ... (R) Is this the Merkabah?

A: Mother Stone, yes.


Intriguing too that -

"Wolfram von Eschenbach, the German knight and writer of Parzival, the first complete grail romance, states that the grail is a stone from heaven. Specifically, he calls it lapsit exillîs, which has mystified scholars no end, for lapsit is not Latin, but lapsavit is, meaning ‘it fell’ (Richard Barber, The Holy Grail, 2004, p181). Yet most scholars agree that Eschenbach, a writer who enjoyed his historical puns, actually meant lapis ex celis (Stone from Heaven) or lapis elixir (Elixir Stone)..."

And viewed with a Cassiopaean bias I wonder if the Galatian / Celtic (Kantekkian?) correlations between the Anatolian worshippers of the baetyl 'Cybele' and the Trevari of the Rhineland, whose name translates to 'the crossers' or 'the ferryman' of whose deity Ritona (goddess of the ford or crossing) is invoked in conjunction 'either with the numina of the Augusti (read Caesars) or in honour of the divine house' - hints at a rather divine bloodline (Kore-shite?) aware of the application of a 'Mother Stone' and perhaps related to both the last and coming 'wave' ?

Which makes me speculate that perhaps Mohammed's original inspiration wasn't as patriachal or misogynistic as some of us have been led to believe and perhaps the Shiites of antiquity knew something of it?

Best Wishes

J
 
The black stone of the Kaaba is most likely a meteorite although official studies are not allowed because "it's sacred". I knew before that according to the Sunni tradition, the kaaba was destroyed and rebuilt by the Caliphs, maybe during the Omayyads or the Abassids, don't remember. And the people of Medine (sounds like Midian?), also called Yathrib (sounds like Jethro?) were massacred (including babies) by the armies of the Caliph and these people are supposed to be the first companions of the "prophet". A very shady strory.

Recently I encountered a book (Quranic Geography) where in the end the author speculates quite convincingly that the Kaaba at the time of the oldest strata of the Quran was located in what's called today Petra, and the destruction/rebuilt narrative was a cover-up for its translation to the middle of nowhere in the arabian desert.

This Youtube Video summaries the main points of that chapter.
 
Recently I encountered a book (Quranic Geography) where in the end the author speculates quite convincingly that the Kaaba at the time of the oldest strata of the Quran was located in what's called today Petra, and the destruction/rebuilt narrative was a cover-up for its translation to the middle of nowhere in the arabian desert.


Well that would correspond to the Nabatean reference :-)

Thanks for the link, sounds interesting.
 
The black stone of the Kaaba is most likely a meteorite although official studies are not allowed because "it's sacred". I knew before that according to the Sunni tradition, the kaaba was destroyed and rebuilt by the Caliphs, maybe during the Omayyads or the Abassids, don't remember. And the people of Medine (sounds like Midian?), also called Yathrib (sounds like Jethro?) were massacred (including babies) by the armies of the Caliph and these people are supposed to be the first companions of the "prophet". A very shady strory.

Recently I encountered a book (Quranic Geography) where in the end the author speculates quite convincingly that the Kaaba at the time of the oldest strata of the Quran was located in what's called today Petra, and the destruction/rebuilt narrative was a cover-up for its translation to the middle of nowhere in the arabian desert.

This Youtube Video summaries the main points of that chapter.
The veneration of the Kaaba through 'kissing' the black stone should technically be a very contentious issue in Islamic theology because it is otherwise a form of object-idolatry - had not the prophet Mohammed first kissed it. It was certainly cause for some consternation in the earliest days of Islam's establishment of authority among some ardent followers - not least because of its known veneration among pagans of the pre-Muslim Arab. Now, the Hajj to the Kaaba is the No.1 'Must Do!' for every Muslim.

The black stone was said to have fallen from Heaven or Eden, originally being brilliant white in purity before becoming blackened through the sins of mankind touching it. Black Stone - Wikipedia

"Islamic tradition holds that the Black Stone fell from Jannah to show Adam and Eve where to build an altar, which became the first temple on Earth.[44] Muslims believe that the stone was originally pure and dazzling white, but has since turned black because of the sins of the people who touch it.[45][46]

I though this follow-on was a strange twist, and actually quite enlightening, seemingly at odds with the previous excerpt:

"Its black colour is deemed to symbolize the essential spiritual virtue of detachment and poverty for God (faqr) and the extinction of ego required to progress towards God (qalb)."

And then again this, not so enlightened:

"According to a prophetic tradition, "Touching them both (the Black Stone and al-Rukn al-Yamani) is an expiation for sins."[47

There seems to be a curious parallel with Catholicism through the Veneration of the Cross on Good Friday, kissing Jesus' feet nailed upon the corpus cross - his great suffering wholly centered around expiation of "our" sins, of ALL humanity, through His sacrifice willingly upon pain of death.

Here, Islam's "expiation of sins" is 'given' with individuate consent, therefor not abridging free-will, but dependent on a material object thus making it foolish.
Whilst Christianity's "expiation of sins" through the crucifixion of Jesus Christ is 'given' to, and for, the collective (all humanity) but without our consent thus abridging free-will, but it is of higher ethereal principles therefore profound.
Given the supreme importance of the Kaaba and its black stone in Islam, and the supreme importance of the Crucifixion in (canonical) Christianity, its as if the two respective religions each have one half of the what other should have, and visa versa.
 
The veneration of the Kaaba through 'kissing' the black stone should technically be a very contentious issue in Islamic theology because it is otherwise a form of object-idolatry - had not the prophet Mohammed first kissed it.
The islamic theology before the Arab empires (were they islamic from the beginning? Or was Islam gradually developped to serve the stability of these empires?).

For instance, one can consider the coins of the first Umayad caliphs:

Muawiyah ibn abi Sufyan:
300px-Umayyad_Caliphate._temp._Mu%27awiya_I_ibn_Abi_Sufyan._AH_41-60_AD_661-680.jpg

Yazid ibn Muawiyah:
220px-Drachm_of_Yazid_I%2C_676-677.jpg

Muawiyah ibn Yazid:
300px-Umayyad_Caliphate._temp._Mu%27awiya_II_ibn_Yazid._AH_64_AD_683-684.jpg

Marwan ibn al-Hakam ibn Abi al-3as ibn Umayya: This dude was a companion of Muhammed according to the canonical islamic history
220px-Drachm_from_Yazid_I_to_Marwan_I%3B_Talha_governor.jpg

Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan: The great reformer of the Arab empire (and destroyer of the Kaaba), and builder of the Dome of the Rock.
220px-First_Umayyad_gold_dinar%2C_Caliph_Abd_al-Malik%2C_695_CE.jpg
then finally, the islamic coins:
180px-Dinar_of_Abd_al-Malik%2C_AH_75.jpg

Everyone knows that under Islam, images of humans and animals are forbiden. So what's going on here?




Edit: Some remarks to consider from HOYLAND, R. (2006). New documentary texts and the early Islamic state. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 69(3):

One is reminded here of the so-called Constitution of Medina, the document Muhammad drew up to provide a co-operative framework for the adherents of his newly-formed umma/community.
It offers a blueprint for a single politico-religious community uniting different religious denominations under the ‘protection of God’ (dhimmat Allah) to fight on His behalf. The only requirement was that every signatory affirm what is in this document and believe in God and the Last Day’, accept God and Muhammad as the ultimate arbiter for all parties, ‘help one another against whomsoever fights the people of this document’ and contribute to the war effort. This gives two indications for the future direction of the umma: that it should embrace people of different faiths and should be directed towards combating enemies of God.

Thus we might envisage the first caliphs as extending this policy, effectively running a ‘jihad state’, a politico-religious entity comprising fighting men of different religious affiliations whose overriding aim was the expansion of the state in the name of God and who shared a belief in the One God and the Last Day. Muslim sources tend to assume that non-Muslims who participated in the conquests must have converted at an early stage, but the prosopographical evidence suggests rather that many remained in their own religion until much later.

The religiously pluralist character of the community would explain why no Islamic pretensions were advanced and why the leader was designated by such confessionally neutral terms as ‘servant of God’ and ‘commander of the believers’. The latter would have replaced Muhammad as the arbiter for all parties, and the Quran would at this time have been of significance only for the Muslim members, just as the Torah and Gospel were only binding for the Jews and Christians. ‘Umar’s grant to Jews of right of residence in Jerusalem and Mu‘awiya’s pilgrimage to the Christian holy sites in that city might then be interpreted as moves to reassure the Jewish and Christian elements in the community of the leadership’s impartiality.

And ‘Abd al-Malik’s innovation would have been to elevate Islam to the position of the official state religion as
opposed to one of a number of creeds of equal standing.
 
Last edited:
Everyone knows that under Islam, images of humans and animals are forbiden. So what's going on here?
"Every image-maker will be in the Fire, and for every image that he made a soul will be created for him, which will be punished in the Fire." -Abd Allah ibn Abbas.

Did you know: The prophet Mohammad happily joined in with the very young Aisha and her dolls! Surely, in the eyes of Islam this is tantamount to falling into black magic/voodooism!??

This is worth reading: Are images, pictures, photos, and cartoons forbidden in Islam?

To reiterate another version of what Abd ibn Abbas said above, here: "Every picture maker will be in Hellfire, for every image will have its soul breathed into it and will punish him with Hell."

This makes me think of when the C's said about tattoos (also forbidden in Islam) making it easier for spirit attachments to latch on. I also wonder about the similarity of scrying using clairvoyance mirror reflection of faces.

Those first coins are interesting. The winged head depictions have an Akkadian-like "Zoroastrian" flavour similar of the Faravahar.
1544097496724.png

The crescent moon and 5-point star on the coins are positioned 'north south east west' suggestive of a Celtic or Maltese cross depiction.
It is also worth adding: Symbolism of any kind is also forbidden, and as such, the crescent moon and 5-point star most associated with Islam should not be used - especially atop mosques.

There's much blurring between 'Haraam' (forbidden) and 'Makruh' ('disapproval' - but not forbidden) in all of this.

In my personal dealings with Muslims, I've know Liverpool FC supporters wearing the club shirt cover up the Liverpool FC 'Liver Bird' symbol with duct-tape before daily prayers - and in one extreme case, a Muslim refuse to buy a perfectly good Vauxhall car because of its griffin logo :lol:
1544097072498.png 1544097238098.png
 
Just finished a book on the possible character of the religious movement of Muhammed and followers that became Islam: The Death of a Prophet: The End of Muhammad's Life and the Beginnings of Islam by Stephen J. Shoemaker

In it, the author discusses the possibility of detecting the earliest strata of the "early generation" beliefs through the Quran and the layers of Tradition, as well as other sources in order to draw an image of the Early Islam (Muhammed and followers) and its evolution towards Imperial Islam (Umayyads and Abassids).

Here is a short except from the conclusion of the fourth chapter:

The evidence that earliest Islam differed in significant ways from what eventually became its classical formation is, from a historical-critical perspective, quite compelling, and it would appear that Muhammad’s religious movement underwent some profound changes as it evolved from the inter-confessional, eschatological faith of the early Believers into an imperial religion defined by Muhammad’s unique prophecy and Arabian identity.
...
As noted in the previous chapter, Muhammad’s earliest followers seem to have shared a fervent belief in the imminent arrival of the Hour and the world’s impending judgment and destruction. Their timetable was extremely short, and there are signs that the eschaton was expected even within Muhammad’s own lifetime: several ḥadīth describe the Hour’s arrival as concomitant with Muhammad’s prophetic mission, and ʿUmar’s reaction to Muhammad’s sudden demise, as recorded in Ibn Isḥāq’s Maghāzī, gives dramatic voice to the early community’s struggle to come to terms with Muhammad’s unexpected passing before the Hour.
...
The early Believers thus were united by a common faith in the God of Abraham and their shared belief that God was working through Muhammad during the final moments of history to warn Abraham’s descendants of the
Hour’s impending judgment. Not surprisingly Jerusalem, the aim of their daily prayers, was identified as the site where this final conflagration would take place: as the traditional focus of both Jewish and Christian eschatological hopes, it was only natural that Muhammad and the early community of the Believers would have similarly expected to witness the end of history in the Holy City. Likewise it appears that Jewish expectations of the Temple’s restoration prior to the eschaton were embraced by the early community of the Believers.
Both Jewish and Islamic traditions describe the Temple’s restoration as a portent of the Hour, and it would appear that such expectations were partially met through ʿAbd al-Malik’s construction of the Dome of the Rock [There are "rumours" of a cubic temple built just before]. The Rock’s significance as the central focus of both Jewish Temples and the complex rituals apparently devised in the early Islamic period to venerate the Rock suggest the Dome’s construction to serve as kind of provisional replacement of the Temple in Islamic guise while awaiting the coming divine restoration of the Temple at the eschaton. Yet once Islam had shed both this early hybridity and its eschatological fervor, a new significance would have to be discovered for Jerusalem, the Temple Mount, its sacred rock, and its shrine that would distinguish Islam from Judaism (and Christianity) and also correspond with the emergence of a distinctly Islamic holy land in the Ḥijāz.

Much more is discussed in the book of course.
 
Just finished a book on the possible character of the religious movement of Muhammed and followers that became Islam: The Death of a Prophet: The End of Muhammad's Life and the Beginnings of Islam by Stephen J. Shoemaker

In it, the author discusses the possibility of detecting the earliest strata of the "early generation" beliefs through the Quran and the layers of Tradition, as well as other sources in order to draw an image of the Early Islam (Muhammed and followers) and its evolution towards Imperial Islam (Umayyads and Abassids).

Here is a short except from the conclusion of the fourth chapter:


Much more is discussed in the book of course.


Thank you for the reference mkrnhr.

In the Amazon comments of the book, I find the following very interesting.


Shoemaker gives an outstanding analysis of early Islamic history here, and convincingly shows that the early community of believers was far more apocalyptic and Israel-centered than the religion which later emerged as Islam.

(…)

Lastly I was puzzled by Shoemaker's omission of what would seem to be a terrific piece of historical evidence in support of his thesis: There is a tombstone inscription, which contains the date 691 AD (i.e. one year prior to the Dome of the Rock), which seems to be the earliest "true Islamic" inscription, in the sense of explicitly referring to Islam and Muhammad. This inscription is remarkably supportive of Shoemaker's thesis that the early community of believers looked on Muhammad's death as an unexpected tragedy that wrecked their apocalyptic expectations (Muhammad being expected to lead them into Jerusalem, initiating the end times). By contrast, the inscription makes no sense in the context of the Islamic religion which later evolved, which considered Muhammad's death to be relatively insignificant since he had allegedly already delivered the complete Qur'an, and unified Central Arabia. Here is the inscription's full text, which you can access on the "Islamic Awareness" website:

In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate.
The greatest calamity of the people of
Islām (ahl al-Islām) is that which has fallen them on the death of Muḥammad the Prophet;
may God grant him peace.
This is the tomb of ʿAbāssa daughter of
Juraij (?), son of (?). May clemency
forgiveness and satisfaction of God be on her.
She died on Monday four-
teen days having elapsed from Dhul-Qaʿdah
of the year one and seventy,
confessing that there is no god but God
alone without partner and that
Muḥammad is His servant and His apostle,
may God grant him peace.

In describing Muhammad's death as the "greatest calamity" that ever beset Islam, along with its detailed Islamic proclamations, and a specific date that (slightly) precedes the Dome of the Rock, this inscription strikes me as powerful support for the thesis that the prevailing early tradition amongst the believers was one of apocalyptic expectations that were unexpectedly cut short by their prophet's untimely death. This was seen as a shocking calamity, trashing the believers' expectations. Later generations slowly modified their beliefs over decades, however, so that this derailed apocalyptic movement eventually became something radically different: Islam as we know it. It would certainly not be the first time that has happened!


The book concludes that Islam probably was Palestine-focused in its origin and that Muhammad died with his back to Mecca and his face to the Temple Mount, so to speak.


This is more than a discussion of a single chronological problem like the exact year that Muhammad died. Shoemaker continues his discussion to examine the origins of Islam. He builds on the work of others like Crone and Cook, Hoyland, Donner and Wansbrough. This stream of scholarship is very sceptical of the traditional account of Islamic origins. Basically Shoemaker sees Muhammad's movement as a coalition of monotheists (Arab monotheists, Jews, Christians) with apocalyptic expectations centered around Jerusalem.

Eventually the "Believers" (now dubbed Muslims) marginalised the other groups, developed a sort of Arab nationalism, turned the Hijaz into an Arab 'Holy Land' and started to re-write their history.

Shoemaker says 'The evidence that earliest Islam differed in significant ways from what eventually became its classical formation is, from a historical-critical perspective, quite compelling, and it would appear that Muhammad's religious movement underwent some profound changes as it evolved from the inter-confessional, eschatological faith of the early Believers into an imperial religion defined by Muhammad's unique prophecy and Arabian identity.' (page 260)

The weakest part of this book is the conclusion (pages 266-277). Basically Shoemaker argues that everyone knows that the followers of Jesus changed his teachings lots in the following centuries (as proven by 'scholars' like the Jesus Seminar, specifically John Dominic Crossan- wink, wink, nudge, nudge) then it is totally plausible that Muslims could do the same thing.

I usually dislike revisionist histories. However, Shoemaker does try to back up all his claims with reference to the sources, both primary and secondary. The result is that a huge part of this book is made up of endnotes (pages 279-352) and bibliography (pages 353-390). The shift in Islamic identity is not really massive in scheme of things but you have to read Shoemaker's case and decide for yourself. For me, Shoemaker's paradigm of a community of monotheistic believers helps to explain something that has always bugged me, how Islam came up with so much manpower to enable them to conquer so much territory. I always found it hard to believe that so many Arabs would convert so quickly. Shoemaker's explanation is that Jews and Christians were allied to the community and participated in the conquests.
 
I mean, if Shoemaker's assumptions are sufficiently on the mark, then this might help explain why the original Islamic community was not very interested in producing written historical accounts of their experiences and in creating a profoundly systematic and orderly religion. Because of their extremely apocalyptic world view? That they were in the very end-times?

The assumption that a few generations after Muhammad, Muslims had to produce a new Islamic world-view that was slightly less-apocalyptic and much more systematic might also help put some light on Peter Townsend's claims, his suspicions about the authenticity of Muhammad, the Quran, and Islam.

And the combination of the issues of Israel/Palestine and Apocalypse is very interesting in itself.
 
Back
Top Bottom