Bravo. I've read about this in other places, including some of the papers written by the archaeologists and historians. I also read a book written by a former Muslim who is now Christian. (I can't remember the exact title and it's in the States, while I am not, else I would include it here.) In it, she points out how much of Islam has its roots in Christianity. (I know that will upset some people.) The author advanced a theory that Muhammed heard some pieces of Christianity, but not the full story. He stitched together what he knew, then filled in the rest of the details, Is she correct? Maybe; we weren't there. A theory is just a theory until evidence confirms or denies.
If your faith is threatened by a theory, it's not very strong. If your faith is threatened by anything, that's a you problem. That's the importance of deconstruction; keep what's true and throw away the garbage. It's all about the relationship if it's really faith and the relationship doesn't live or die by the origin story. If I have a personal relationship with someone - anyone - that relationship isn't going to be threatened if I find out one of their parents went to jail or their parents weren't married or they were adopted or whatever. The archaeology doesn't threaten my relationship with God. It's interesting and fascinating, but it doesn't change anything, so I'm not threatened or offended by what's learned. If the history offends you, your insecurity is showing.
Thank you! The theory you're describing (Muhammad working from partial, secondhand Christianity and filling the gaps) tracks with a strand of scholarship on the Quran's origins, so your memory of the book is pointing somewhere solid even without the title. And you've put your finger on the thing I care most about: the history only threatens a faith that was leaning on the origin story to hold itself up. Yours clearly isn't, which is why you can find this fascinating instead of frightening. Grateful to have you reading.
I have a suspicion this started from the times when Judaic priests worshipping a certain deity competed against priests of other deities by declaring their god EXISTING and other gods NON-EXISTING. I mean, the god in question has a habit of introducing himself as I AM, how much more Freudian can it get? But if the main selling point of the religion is the insistence on belief in a certain factual issue (existence or non-existence of a certain god), then that insistence on having all of the facts their way becomes the cornerstone of the religion. I mean, an old Roman would be much less offended if someone suggested to him that Venus cult has common roots with Aphrodite cult, or that some other gods might be existing.
A polytheist could hear that Venus and Aphrodite share roots and just shrug, because nothing in his religion depended on the count being exact. Once you build the whole thing on one non-negotiable fact, that this god exists and the others don't, every challenge to the fact hits the foundation.
Thanks for the feedback, Philip. Today's piece goes live in a few hours, on the triangle between Islam, Iran, and the US. And this week, if all goes well, I'll publish one on the verses in the Quran that read as suspiciously convenient for Muhammad. Curious what you make of both.
Bravo. I've read about this in other places, including some of the papers written by the archaeologists and historians. I also read a book written by a former Muslim who is now Christian. (I can't remember the exact title and it's in the States, while I am not, else I would include it here.) In it, she points out how much of Islam has its roots in Christianity. (I know that will upset some people.) The author advanced a theory that Muhammed heard some pieces of Christianity, but not the full story. He stitched together what he knew, then filled in the rest of the details, Is she correct? Maybe; we weren't there. A theory is just a theory until evidence confirms or denies.
If your faith is threatened by a theory, it's not very strong. If your faith is threatened by anything, that's a you problem. That's the importance of deconstruction; keep what's true and throw away the garbage. It's all about the relationship if it's really faith and the relationship doesn't live or die by the origin story. If I have a personal relationship with someone - anyone - that relationship isn't going to be threatened if I find out one of their parents went to jail or their parents weren't married or they were adopted or whatever. The archaeology doesn't threaten my relationship with God. It's interesting and fascinating, but it doesn't change anything, so I'm not threatened or offended by what's learned. If the history offends you, your insecurity is showing.
Thank you! The theory you're describing (Muhammad working from partial, secondhand Christianity and filling the gaps) tracks with a strand of scholarship on the Quran's origins, so your memory of the book is pointing somewhere solid even without the title. And you've put your finger on the thing I care most about: the history only threatens a faith that was leaning on the origin story to hold itself up. Yours clearly isn't, which is why you can find this fascinating instead of frightening. Grateful to have you reading.
I have a suspicion this started from the times when Judaic priests worshipping a certain deity competed against priests of other deities by declaring their god EXISTING and other gods NON-EXISTING. I mean, the god in question has a habit of introducing himself as I AM, how much more Freudian can it get? But if the main selling point of the religion is the insistence on belief in a certain factual issue (existence or non-existence of a certain god), then that insistence on having all of the facts their way becomes the cornerstone of the religion. I mean, an old Roman would be much less offended if someone suggested to him that Venus cult has common roots with Aphrodite cult, or that some other gods might be existing.
A polytheist could hear that Venus and Aphrodite share roots and just shrug, because nothing in his religion depended on the count being exact. Once you build the whole thing on one non-negotiable fact, that this god exists and the others don't, every challenge to the fact hits the foundation.
I am curious about Islam & it's history
Thanks for the feedback, Philip. Today's piece goes live in a few hours, on the triangle between Islam, Iran, and the US. And this week, if all goes well, I'll publish one on the verses in the Quran that read as suspiciously convenient for Muhammad. Curious what you make of both.