Salvation history

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), May 22, 2012 at 07:35

Hi Ianus

Great comments

And what do think about the account of the first fitna and the battle of Siffin between Moawiya and Ali ibn Abu Talib?

Well I urge you to read Hoyland survey about all the extant Arabic as well as non Muslim literary sources from 632CE until 750CE and you will not find a single word about a fitna or the battle Siffin or even the so called al-Khulafa' al-Rashidun which I happen to believe that they never exised

As for the name Ali it is a very strange name as it really means he who is high and I do not believe that he ever existed and the other strange name is that of Omar al-farooq as the word al-farooq means the redeemer.

When Moawiya felt he was losing ground, he made his soldiers attach pages of the Koran to their spears and wave them asking for arbitration.

Wait a minute: papyri were very expensive back then and this is why they were reused again and again and destroying a papyrus was like burning money so i do not believe such story. plus Muslims are not supposed to split the Qur'an or to have it destroyed but most damaging to this bogus story is that Mu3awiyya more likely than not was a Christian Arab from either Mesopotamia or the Syrian desert and he had nothing to to with al-Hijaz as how can a Muslim have a cross itched before his name as in the case of al-Ghadra bath in Syria? and why would a Muslim leader like him have a Syriac name and not an Arabic name as the word Mu3awiyya in Syriac means he who howls which in Arabic would have been al-3Awi

The Koran made the zealots in Ali's camp waver and with them the rest of the army wavered too thus saving the day for Moawiya who finally usurped power.

This is what I call salvation history that means nothing and lead us no where

I don't have the relevant literature on the battle

Let me remind you what we have about it was written 300 long years after such so called battle and it is all bogus

at hand but this is what also such an outstanding scholar as Julius Wellhausen reports who critically follows the traditional Moslem historical account .

It seems that you are not aware that in spite of the fact that Wellhausen work on the Bible was great. His work on the Qur'an did not fly because of the nature of the Qur'an as the Qur'an is really a flat text and it does not have the rich literary deposits that the Bible has and if you apply the same tools of literary criticism and once you scratch the surface the Qur'an falls apart and it was not until another great german historian and that is Noth, and his form criticism that the whole Islamic literature was untangled

If the account of the battle at Siffin is correct in this detail, then this would corroborate what the Sana'a Koran shows - the Koran(Koranic pericopes,fragments etc.) was known and in use in the very early period.

Again you have to be careful because you have many assumptions here and this is not what history is all about

> and why would the penalty of al-zani wa al-zaniyya is stoning and not the Quranic whipping unless the Quranic material were not the source of islamic law early on or the Qur'an not yet canonized and to add insult to injury those Muhajiruun (this is what the invading Arabs called themselves early on) do not call themselves in the literary sources neither Muslims nor even Arabs and no mention of a Muhammad or his Qur'an and why is that?<

And may I ask you one question not necessarily connected to literary sources? In you opinion whose body is resting in the Green Mosque in Medina ? If it is not ... Mahomet, then whose body is it ?

Who knows and who cares

Listen it is was al-Khayzuran the mother of Harun al-Rashid some 200 years after the death of the master that went to Mecca and "located" his home which was an ordinary dwelling and it is very clear that this was also made up

I omit two other bodies buried with him and an empty spot nearby reserved you know for whom?

Oh let me guess and I'm just joking: 3A'isha right?

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".