Grand unified books thread

[garbon]

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?

Well from here, most of the Arabs were not united by the death of Muhammad.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Muslim_Conquest.PNG

[garbon]

This article suggest Syriacs writing about him in 637.

http://syrcom.cua.edu/hugoye/Vol12No2/HV12N2Penn.pdf

Oh and Tim from what I've found questioning his existence isn't something new. Appears to have been a vogue notion in the 19th century?

[Razgovory]

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?

Well from here, most of the Arabs were not united by the death of Muhammad.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Muslim_Conquest.PNG

Awww.  Did you draw that yourself?  I'm trying to figure out how this proves your point though.

[11B4V]

Still reading Zamulin's,  Demolishing the Myth: The Tank Battle at Prokhorovka.. I'm around a 1/3 of the way through and only on the events of 8-9 July. It is the only book/account (on Kursk) that has given a description of 5th Guards Army and 5th Guards Tank Army's approach march to the Prokhorovka area. Fascinatingly detailed with transcriptions of the actual orders and daily reports. Zamulin is very critical of some of Vatutin's and Rotmistrov's actions. I haven't gotten to the part dealing with old JS's formal inquiry into Rotmistrov's losses at Prokhorovka. Apparently "Rots" damn near got executed for his handling of that battle. 

If you were to combine this book with Nipe's Blood, Steel, and Myth you pretty much have a solid, detailed, and well researched account of the southern axis from both sides. In the end these two books are limited in scope.

For a much broader account, covering the 9th Army offensive, Operation Kutuzov Operation Polkovodets Rumyantsev, and the fascinating battles around Bogodukhov, read Glantz's book.

[Ideologue]

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?

Greeks are lazy.  What can be done?

[Kleves]

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. 

They've been doing that for a thousand years.

[CountDeMoney]

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. 

They've been doing that for a thousand years.

Haven't most major religions?

You guys read some incredibly dry shit.

[CountDeMoney]

You guys read some incredibly dry shit.

Then again, I can't really talk;  been plowing through this one myself:

http://www.usni.org/store/books/chinese-navy/red-star-over-pacific

[garbon]

Awww.  Did you draw that yourself?  I'm trying to figure out how this proves your point though.

Kid, you're just back - maybe you should stay a way from wild and odd attacks?

Anyway it was an aside in response to Tim's comment about the Arabs being united by Muhammad.

[jimmy olsen]

Can anyone recommend a good book on Genghis Khan?

[Ed Anger]

Yes.

[jimmy olsen]

Yes.

Well, recommend one then. 

[Malthus]

Can anyone recommend a good book on Genghis Khan?

This is one case in which going to the original source is best even for the casual hobby historian - see if you can find a good translation of the Secret History of the Mongols. This one is said to be readable.

http://www.amazon.com/Secret-History-Mongols-Origin-Chingis/dp/0887272991/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&qid=1342185879&sr=8-8&keywords=%22secret+history+of+the+mongols%22

Great horse opera. 

[Grey Fox]

I'm up to Book of 9 of Jordan's Wheel of Time.

You guys probably all hate it but I don't care, you are all snobs.

[Josephus]

I don't hate it.

Though I've never actually even heard of it...