Grand unified books thread

[garbon]

Reading Holland's In the Shadow of the Sword.

It is as good as you anticipated but not at all what you thought it might be....

Can you elaborate?

I thought it would be yet another book giving the history of the rise and expansion of Islam.  What it turned out to be was a well argued refutation of the common starting point that Muhammad actually existed and then turns to explain the rise of Islam in terms of myth making which borrowed heavily form the surrounding social, political and religious context.

I find it particularly interesting because Islam has so much in common with Christianity both in terms in which its myths were constructed and the reasons they were constructed in such a manner.

Interesting. I did not know that the actual existence of Mohammed was in dispute.

Yeah I wonder how well argued the refutation can be then.  After all, their are accounts of several tribes in Arabia with their "would-be" Mohammeds.

[Josephus]

Jonathan Fenby's The Penguin History of China (the fall and rise fo a great power, 1850-2009)

Excellent general introduction to the history of modern China from the last Emperors to post Olympics Beijing. Highly recommended.

[crazy canuck]

Reading Holland's In the Shadow of the Sword.

It is as good as you anticipated but not at all what you thought it might be....

Can you elaborate?

I thought it would be yet another book giving the history of the rise and expansion of Islam.  What it turned out to be was a well argued refutation of the common starting point that Muhammad actually existed and then turns to explain the rise of Islam in terms of myth making which borrowed heavily form the surrounding social, political and religious context.

I find it particularly interesting because Islam has so much in common with Christianity both in terms in which its myths were constructed and the reasons they were constructed in such a manner.

Interesting. I did not know that the actual existence of Mohammed was in dispute.

Yeah, I didnt either.  But Holland makes a pretty convincing case.

[crazy canuck]

Reading Holland's In the Shadow of the Sword.

It is as good as you anticipated but not at all what you thought it might be....

Can you elaborate?

I thought it would be yet another book giving the history of the rise and expansion of Islam.  What it turned out to be was a well argued refutation of the common starting point that Muhammad actually existed and then turns to explain the rise of Islam in terms of myth making which borrowed heavily form the surrounding social, political and religious context.

I find it particularly interesting because Islam has so much in common with Christianity both in terms in which its myths were constructed and the reasons they were constructed in such a manner.

Interesting. I did not know that the actual existence of Mohammed was in dispute.

Yeah I wonder how well argued the refutation can be then.  After all, their are accounts of several tribes in Arabia with their "would-be" Mohammeds.

He makes reference to an account which had someone who could be a Mohammed type character but he goes on to explain that all the biographical material was written 200 yrs plus after his supposed life.  Nothing is written contemporaneously.

[Ideologue]

Reading Holland's In the Shadow of the Sword.

It is as good as you anticipated but not at all what you thought it might be....

Can you elaborate?

I thought it would be yet another book giving the history of the rise and expansion of Islam.  What it turned out to be was a well argued refutation of the common starting point that Muhammad actually existed and then turns to explain the rise of Islam in terms of myth making which borrowed heavily form the surrounding social, political and religious context.

I find it particularly interesting because Islam has so much in common with Christianity both in terms in which its myths were constructed and the reasons they were constructed in such a manner.

Interesting. I did not know that the actual existence of Mohammed was in dispute.

Yeah, I didnt either.  But Holland makes a pretty convincing case.

So is the book banned in half of Europe yet?

Actually, that sounds pretty cool.  I may have to check this out, dude.

[jimmy olsen]

Reading Holland's In the Shadow of the Sword.

It is as good as you anticipated but not at all what you thought it might be....

Can you elaborate?

I thought it would be yet another book giving the history of the rise and expansion of Islam.  What it turned out to be was a well argued refutation of the common starting point that Muhammad actually existed and then turns to explain the rise of Islam in terms of myth making which borrowed heavily form the surrounding social, political and religious context.

I find it particularly interesting because Islam has so much in common with Christianity both in terms in which its myths were constructed and the reasons they were constructed in such a manner.

Interesting. I did not know that the actual existence of Mohammed was in dispute.

Yeah I wonder how well argued the refutation can be then.  After all, their are accounts of several tribes in Arabia with their "would-be" Mohammeds.

He makes reference to an account which had someone who could be a Mohammed type character but he goes on to explain that all the biographical material was written 200 yrs plus after his supposed life.  Nothing is written contemporaneously.

The Arabs were overrunning Byzantium's middle eastern territories ten years after Muhammad's death. How can there not be written evidence one way or the other that absolutely proves or disproves his existence? And if there is evidence that disproves it, how come none of Islam's enemies ever used it?

[The Brain]

Ask Ed. He feels a special kinship with Mohamed.

[Ed Anger]

Ask Ed. He feels a special kinship with Mohamed.

BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM

[The Brain]

Ask Ed. He feels a special kinship with Mohamed.

BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM

No, the other one.

[crazy canuck]

The Arabs were overrunning Byzantium's middle eastern territories ten years after Muhammad's death. How can there not be no contemporary writings regarding him?written evidence one way or the other that absolutely proves or disproves his existence? And if there is evidence that disproves it, how come none of Islam's enemies ever used it?

Your first sentence almost got the point.  I will fix your first sentence to more closely approximate part of Holland's argument.

As to your second sentence it misses the point completely.  How can an enemy disprove the existence of Muhammad if he doesnt come into full existence for another 200 years?


Another interesting observation Holland makes is that some Muslim scholars are now questioning whether any of the sayings of the Prophet are genuine and many Muslim scholars quibble about which are geniune are which are not.  Holland doesnt say this but my observation is that Islam is now (and perhaps has always been) going through a process similar what Christianity when through when Christian scholars and theologians were trying to determine which texts were orthodox or heresies and the true nature of God, the son and the Holy ghost.  The difference is that Islam has never had something akin to the Catholic Church with the power to stamp out what it considered heresy  - although we can see efforts of the Wahibists trying to do that.

[Josephus]

The difference is that Islam has never had something akin to the Catholic Church with the power to stamp out what it considered heresy  - although we can see efforts of the Wahibists trying to do that.

Tell that to Mr. Rashdie.

[crazy canuck]

The difference is that Islam has never had something akin to the Catholic Church with the power to stamp out what it considered heresy  - although we can see efforts of the Wahibists trying to do that.

Tell that to Mr. Rashdie.

The fact that he is still around and writing tells me I dont have much to tell him....

[The Brain]

PSA: If you didn't get Aliens Colonial Marines: Technical Manual in the 90s be advised that the artwork is pretty crappy.

[jimmy olsen]

The Arabs were overrunning Byzantium's middle eastern territories ten years after Muhammad's death. How can there not be no contemporary writings regarding him?written evidence one way or the other that absolutely proves or disproves his existence? And if there is evidence that disproves it, how come none of Islam's enemies ever used it?

Your first sentence almost got the point.  I will fix your first sentence to more closely approximate part of Holland's argument.

As to your second sentence it misses the point completely.  How can an enemy disprove the existence of Muhammad if he doesnt come into full existence for another 200 years?

The Arabs were recently united were they not? If not under Muhammad, then who? Surely the Byzantines must have mentioned him. The Arabs were Muslims were they not, or is the author arguing that Islam had not yet truly developed? Surely the Byzantines must have written about the heretical/heathen faith of their enemy. What they believed, who founded the heresy, etc. You're saying that the Byzantines and the Persians wrote nothing about the rulers, military leaders or religion of their enemies?

[garbon]

Actually, that sounds pretty cool.  I may have to check this out, dude.

I don't know, without having touched it - it sounds a bit more like fancy premise that serves to distract from actual history.