The Mecca Mystery: Probing the Black Hole at the Heart of Muslim History by Peter Townsend

Ursus Minor

Jedi Master
Yeah, that seems to be the crux of the matter: once people realize that the main religions are frauds, they are tempted into the toxic materialistic belief system which leads to nihilism. And vice-versa - once they realize that materialism and dogmatic scientism is nonsense and soul-destroying, they go right back to the main religions, which are frauds...

I beg to differ. The people I know may not be a cross section of the general population, but my personal experience is that those who are disappointed with a certain religion are rather moving either to another religion or some esoteric or "new age" movement. If they'd rather turn materialistic, chances are that they will have been all the while.

I have yet to meet a materialist or a dogmatic scientist who realizes that materialism is nonsense, let alone soul-destroying. That would probably be asking too much of them.
When dissatisfied, they would rather look for a new and improved materialism including state-of-the-art paraphernalia.
But I would be hesitant to declare that all materialists are prone to nihilism.

Experiencing a major jolt in life, though, could actually have materialists look for a deeper meaning in life...
 

whitecoast

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Speaking of Islamic hidden history, I encountered this video in an earlier investigation I was doing. It's about a UNESCO heritage site that is deemed to be a monument constructed by the earliest Muslim ruler in Delhi. The video uses documentary and architectural and cultural data to demonstrate that this was not in fact built by Muslims, but simply re-skinned and re-branded as Muslim; the structure and mosques were in fact built by Hindus.


The "official story" from Wikipedia:
Qutab Minar was established along with Quwwat-ul-Islam Mosque around 1192 by Qutab-ud-din Aibak, first ruler of the Delhi Sultanate.[4] The mosque complex is one of the earliest that survives in the Indian subcontinent.[6][7] The minaret is named after Qutab-ud-din Aibak, or Qutbuddin Bakhtiar Kaki, a Sufi saint.[8] Its ground storey was built over the ruins of the Lal Kot, the citadel of Dhillika.[9] Aibak's successor Iltutmish added three more storeys.[8] The minar's topmost storey was damaged by lightning in 1369 and was rebuilt by Firuz Shah Tughlaq, who added another storey. In 1505, an earthquake damaged Qutub Minar; it was repaired by Sikander Lodi. On 1 September 1803, a major earthquake caused serious damage. Major Robert Smith of the British Indian Army renovated the tower in 1828 and installed a pillared cupola over the fifth story, thus creating a sixth. The cupola was taken down in 1848, under instructions from The Viscount Hardinge, then Governor General of India. It was reinstalled at ground level to the east of Qutab Minar, where it remains. It is known as "Smith's Folly".[10]
The clearest evidence was the imagery of bells on the "minaret" - which are images forbidden in Islam but are commonplace in Hindu temples. Not to mention that the arabic verses on the building itself are filled with grammar errors and nonsensical statements.
 

Martina

Jedi Master
I kind of believe Islam could be medieval religion because it's dramatic (don't want to offend anyone) but it fits in catastrophic environment, such as plague, wars, meteors falling, famine... so it could have been a new religion when Ottomans started to conquere the Balcans going all the way to Wienna. I don't know:
1. haven't read the book yet
2. have the tooth infection again, then I have crazy ideas
 

bozadi

Jedi
An interesting book and discussion, thank you Laura and all.

I got a free chapter (40 or 50 pages) from the author’s website. After finishing with it, I might obtain the book. I also follow the excerpts and comments made here about the book and the author, thank you. From the posts in his website and social media accounts, he’s appeared to be from a Christian apologetic background to me for some reason.

I’ve never thought that actuality of Muhammad could be a matter of debate. I currently still believe he existed but I’m interested in learning about any ideas and disccussions otherwise. Even if he did exist, some critical specifics of his life and deeds might have been different than what is generally described.

In Turkey, there has always been discussions and debates between opposite ideologies (betwen Islamism and Atheism, or between Sunnism and Alevism/Shiism, for instance) about the early and later history of Islam. But these debates essentially, but not exclusively, focus on the details and morality of the history of Islamic/Quranic rules, acts, and figures rather than their authenticity (except, mainly, for authenticity of hadiths). There is already so much oral and written material (by Islamic historians and hadith collectors) for discussion and debate for various opposing parties. I think all of these oral and written sources assume the actuality of Muhammad as described although they involve fervent debates especially between Sunni and Shia people as to their interpretation. This situation makes me think that Muhammad must have existed because the division and clash between the Sunni and Shia groups is an extremely serious situation within Islam. Although the great lack of written historical testimonies from within the lifetime of Muhammad is so sad and maybe controversial to some extent, it might be concluded that the oral culture and memory of Sunni and (especially?) Shia Muslim groups is a significant factor here.

You know, for example, one of the greatest debates about the early Islamic history is one about the election of the caliph to rule Muslim community when Muhammad died. There are so many details and so many hadiths conveyed concerning that event including its background and aftermath. And so many others about almost innumerable events both before and after his death. The only main difference between the two main Islamic groups regarding all these is in the interpretation of these events rather than their authenticity.

By the way, Muhammad’s avoidance of putting the revelations he received into a solid book for a reference is very interesting. Other than its possible controversial aspects, this situation kind of implies that those people, especially in that period, didn’t have a strong tendency to produce written testimonies of their life experiences for themselves and for posterity. There can be various reasons for this. I don’t doubt that the Quran was significantly altered for various political purposes but I don’t necessarily think that the original, if ever compiled properly, was a perfect or very efficient guide for all Muslims or humanity. Muhammad might very well have received some STS communications along with STO ones. Maybe one of the reasons for his avoidance of making it a book in his own time was his suspicions that STS energies infiltered the material. That what mattered was not some piece of writing but what he tried to examplify by his own acts?

Although I’m not closed to the possibility that there was no Muhammad or that the currently acknowledged descriptions of him and his deeds are significantly different than the actual situation, my main concern about him is the extent of corruption he went through. I’m sorry to admit that I haven’t ever carried out a thorough search or examination of comparative written sources to form an original and conscious idea on this, I tend to believe based on various impressions that he had a good intention (STO wanderer with an important mission) but that, as could be expected, he succeeded this much and was corrupted that much, and I try to understand how much each actually.

One of the greatest issues on this appears to be concerning his ambition to “spread Islam”. This ambition seems to have turned into greed at certain points or ever after some point. There are even Quranic verses that warn him about this. I mean, to the effect “Hey, calm down, your responsibility is just to offer it, not to force it by sword. If we wanted, we could convert everyone to Islam right away, now, couldn’t we?!” He seems to have deviated from his “original mission”, if any, at this or that extent. But there are so many questions marks about this situation in my mind. I mean, for example, was Islam supposed to be spread around a significant part of the world anyway? Was this the plan by STO overseers among innumerable other plans for the rest of humanity? If it was, how successful or optimal was the implementation? Maybe a balanced view would say the spread of Islam in this or that way was destined, but there has been a struggle between STO and STS about many aspects of it. I wonder if Islam’s spread diverted significantly to the STS side due to a significant corruption in Muhammad or in his companions or by certain other rulers in later history? I don’t doubt that there have been soooo many corruptions in the entire history of Islam at this or that levels of darkness, along with some good influences, but if Islam didn’t appear at all, would everything be better? Has the story of Islam been much more below the intentions of relevant STO overseers, or is it so-so, or not bad at all, although I seriously doubt regarding the latter option! You know, it is the masses and their preferences that determine the story to a great extent, I suppose. These are not easy, and not necessarily right, questions, of course.

Sorry for sharing so much personal and potentially subjectifying stuff/load on this thread. I’ll try to balance and clarify my mind by following this thread. Thank you all again.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
I think all of these oral and written sources assume the actuality of Muhammad as described although they involve fervent debates especially between Sunni and Shia people as to their interpretation. This situation makes me think that Muhammad must have existed because the division and clash between the Sunni and Shia groups is an extremely serious situation within Islam. Although the great lack of written historical testimonies from within the lifetime of Muhammad is so sad and maybe controversial to some extent, it might be concluded that the oral culture and memory of Sunni and (especially?) Shia Muslim groups is a significant factor here.
A lot like the debates within Christianity, eh? And even leading to wars, yes? And all over a guy who never existed as described at all.
 

genero81

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Yeah, that seems to be the crux of the matter: once people realize that the main religions are frauds, they are tempted into the toxic materialistic belief system which leads to nihilism. And vice-versa - once they realize that materialism and dogmatic scientism is nonsense and soul-destroying, they go right back to the main religions, which are frauds...
I think there is a lot of truth in that statement. People getting bounced around like ping pong balls between one fraud or another. At the same time there is a lot being discovered in many fields that can potentially 'break the spell.' It's a time of intense information 'war.' Just need the right people to sort through it and make sense of it all.
 

bozadi

Jedi
A lot like the debates within Christianity, eh? And even leading to wars, yes? And all over a guy who never existed as described at all.
Oh, speaking of Jesus... Apparently Mustafa Kemal Ataturk doubted the existence of Jesus. Last year, some news reports in Turkey mentioned a book entitled “Atatürk’ün Sansürlenen Mektubu” (“Ataturk’s letter that was censored”) by a researcher-author Atilla Oral. The book provides the images of a letter that Ataturk seems to have written to the Turkish Historical Society on August 16-17, 1931. In the letter, he provides some of his criticisms to an official in the Society regarding the writing of some history book. The criticisms are mostly about the extreme/unwanted Islamic influences on Turkish people’s perspective of Turkish history.

And in some part of the letter, he says:

“Camii Ezher varlığı ve prensipleri, mevhum denecek kadar hiç olan İsa'yı yaratan apotrlar yetiştirmeye ne yazık ki kaynak olamamıştır.”

Or, in translation:

“The presence and the principles of Al-Azhar Mosque failed to produce apostles like those who created Jesus, who is nothing to the point of being fictitious.”

This was shocking to me.

At a suitable time, I want to translate one of the relevant news reports and the content of the letter to share here, in the relevant topic. But I don't think that the rest of the letter is more intriguing then the above statement, at least as far as I'm concerned.
 

Hindsight Man

Jedi Master
As for scientific progress, the 'Islamic' caliphates were Number 1 (relative to Europe anyway) in that sphere for about a millennium, so it's dishonest to source majority Muslim countries' relative incapacity in science today to the phony narratives about how Islam came about, ignoring the rich scientific, literary, medical, etc. achievements in-between...
I'll admit I'm fairly poorly informed on islamic history,but did they not heavily rely on greek translations during the ''golden age''? The dhimmis (or however it's spelled) had to translate books into arabic which were then made use of.This included philosophy and mathematics.
 

Voyageur

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Here's a good video where Heinsohn explains his main ideas:
After downloading a few of the papers from Laura's link and reviewing, I watched this presentation by Heinsohn which helped to see where he was going in the many areas from coins to timbers, Vikings to Arthur. I have to admit that I'm in the peculating phase with all this information, yet it was super interesting to hear him layout his arguments against the findings of the spade, so to speak.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
After downloading a few of the papers from Laura's link and reviewing, I watched this presentation by Heinsohn which helped to see where he was going in the many areas from coins to timbers, Vikings to Arthur. I have to admit that I'm in the peculating phase with all this information, yet it was super interesting to hear him layout his arguments against the findings of the spade, so to speak.
That's how I feel about it too. Feel the same about Fomenko's research. Yeah, there is definitely something going on with the adding of many years to the timeline, but I'm not sure that it is so easy to sort out.

Heinsohn suggests that the emperor Diocletian was a contemporary of Augustus, sort of a "sub-emperor" at the time. Well, anything is possible and that may not be terribly unlikely at all. And if that is the case, it would put Constantine and his comet pretty shortly after Augustus and his heirs. The year of the 4 emperors is a repeat, for sure. And the Historia Augusta is a load of nonsense for the most part, but I'm just not sure about Heinsohn's take on Procopius and Ammianus Marcellinus.
 

bozadi

Jedi
Dated And Datable Texts Mentioning Prophet Muhammad From 1-100 AH / 622-719 CE

This article or essay specifically focuses on the claims about non-historicity of Muhammad and purports to have refuted such claims with alleged written historic evidence of Islamic and non-Islamic origin including "Doctrina Jacobi" that was mentioned at the beginning of this thread. I haven't finished reading or carried out a search about the asserted evidence but I'll try to do that.
 

bozadi

Jedi
I think that the evidence offered in the essay I linked above are reliable although they don’t have to be final in this regard, that Muhammad existed.

And I wonder if some of these pieces of evidence were covered by Townsend?

When I generally check about the first 50 pages of Townsend’s book, I notice a repeated emphasis on “hundreds of years after Muhammad’s death”. Although the author doesn’s seem to openly claim that the only verifiable historical sources demonstrating the historicity of Muhammad are from hundreds of years after his death, he ‘might’ be trying to create and feed that impression. Apparently, this “two hundreds years later” emphasis is about the emergence of some Hadith collector-compilers and the systematization of the Islamic practice. This is of course a good subject of debate about the “weirdness” of Islamic history but not really reliable when it comes the historicity of its prophet.

I watched the video of a debate between Robert Spencer and David Wood about “Did Muhammad exist?”


Both of them seem to have some good points for defending their positions. I currently think like Mr. Wood, who argues, among others, something like, “If some people made up a Muhammad for people to recognize and follow as a Prophet, then why did they include in his story so many factors that would ‘embarrass’ him and/or his would-be followers?”

For instance, when he apparently gets his first contact from the source of ‘revelations’, he says something like, “Oh, something bad happened to me, this must be an influence of a black magic.” There’s also the “Satanic Verses” issue.

According to the alleged historical narration, he took so many wives for himself, more than Islam seems to allow for other Muslim men, and in fact he got a revelation allowing this ‘privilege’. There are other ‘apparently condemnable’ things about his marriages, including the one with the former wife of his freed-slave and son-in-law.

Another striking example from many others that really appear embarrassing for Muhammad and his followers is that after killing many Jews in the battle of Khaybar, he happened to accept food/meat from a Jewish woman, whose family had just been killed in the battle, and who wanted to kill Muhammad by putting poison in the food. Although the poison didn’t kill him as he apparently sensed it after taking one or two bites, it is believed that he got serious health problems because of it until his death.

Numerous similar examples can be provided. So, if some people made an organized (?) effort for creating the figure of Muhammad, why are all these details, many of which have been putting Muslims in a difficult position in their defense of their prophet? Although this alone doesn’t prove that Muhammad existed, it is a signficant factor to consider.
 

mkrnhr

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
The historicity problem of proto-islam doesn't reduce to the question of whether Muhammed (if it was his real name) existed or not.
We know that the official narrative, first put forward under the empires (Omayads but especially the Abassids) is a later fabrication. Now, the question is what really happened shortly before that era. Some questions are:
- Who is really this Muhammed they constructed the later legend arround?
- If Muhammed was a/the military/spiritual leader of a sectarian movement, what were their original beliefs/motivations? Can some of these have left traces in some of the texts that later became the Quran and maybe some Hadiths?
- If/How the sectarian movement (proto-islam/muhadjiroun) helped the expansion/creation of the empire and how the empire later used the memory of this movement to consolidate its power by giving itself a distinguishable identity.
- What were the political, social, religious, environmental ("look at the signs in the sky! The end of the world is at hand") taht led to the apparition of this sectarian movement and what happened consequently.
etc. There are many other questions as well.

The main point is that the legend about Muhammed is a fabrication, whether a historical Muhammed existed or not (I suspect he probably existed, but not as portrayed by the Islamic narrative).
 
Top Bottom