J
jakasaki
Guest
**** the document is long to copy & paste, so here is the rest of the link for your review…
orthodoxinfo.com/general/stjohn_islam.aspx
- Status
orthodoxinfo.com/general/stjohn_islam.aspx
S
snarflemike
Guest
St John of Damascus was born in 676 and died in 749, so he would have written his critique sometime in the early-mid 700s. That’s exactly the point being made in this thread, that Islam is mentioned nowhere for the first 50 or so years after its alleged founding, neither by Arabs or by conquered peoples.
I’m no historian, but I can certainly see that the document does not address the question at hand (not that you claimed it did, you were just providing a link).
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
The Islamic Nation which I suppose in dispute could be said was founded by Mohammedanism. However, the same statement above could be made to a long list of expansion through war by the Islamic Nation including South Rome in 700, and other areas which continued right along in expansion. There is no doubt in this. So I agree with ya.
Myself I can’t say yes or no to the point of the author, I’m just trying to see his point open minded. For example, if we view the below link there seems to be outside support which I referred to above. In fact in the link it mentions Mohammeds movement through Syria and Palestine. If I’m not mistaken I remember something about a Christian Bishop who wrote of Mohammed from this period in Syria. In Yemen their is a 7th century Mosque which predates Mohammed through the previous prophets of the Quran I believe there are four? actually I listen to jakasaki on the entire subject of Islam and value her opinion, in this sense I regard many other’s view in other areas of topic of the CC, EO and OO and mainline Protestant]. Open minded and willing to see the other side is imperative with me especially for Christianity, I see much good in all the Apostolic Churchs.
Nevertheless, in fact there is a documentary on the Mosque [actual title “Ark of the Covenant”] recently on the History channel [probably still can be viewed] which is why I remember it. Course the History Channel is about as accurate as Wiki-Pedia for in depth research. In fact I’m almost tempted to stop viewing it completely since I believe they are constant to present a critical view of Christianity with absurd indications of Aliens and just all sorts of distraction and nonsense which IMHO affects Christians who are not firmly rooted. However they went deeper than surface with the Arabs since the Ark traveled though Arab areas according to Bible so there was a crossing of Arab, Jewish and Christian in this regard. Which also brings Judaism to mind and there documented work on Islam.
google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CFYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newadvent.org%2Fcathen%2F10424a.htm&ei=7Oz-T4yoNOXl0QHr84C6Bg&usg=AFQjCNHhOPyJuDqO6p3N9LzE2EL6Y6bykw&sig2=01JA5n0XSifrozF29SvxmA
As stated, this really isn’t my cup of tea bro, I’m much more interested in World Christianity
Which isn’t to insult Islam or to be taken wrong. This fellow Spencer certainly has many links now in regard to this topic. Interesting in the sense I never considered it from this perspective. Basically I thought no different than “ComeHome2Rome” I admit.Peace
M
MacBP
Guest
Perhaps I’m wrong but I thought that Spencer’s hypothesized that Muhammad was real but he had nothing to do with Islam. His status as prophet was retroactively bestowed upon him as a unifying force for the Caliph’s growing empire. In which case I still would be interested to see some early evidence for the existence of Islam.
I think something is a little fishy with the show but I currently have no evidence to the contrary.
I think something is a little fishy with the show but I currently have no evidence to the contrary.
T
The_Wizard
Guest
There is a simple way to answer this question. Just show us a certified copy of his birth certificate!
U
Usbek_de_Perse
Guest
The story of the poisoning is dubious, especially the conversation and time inconsistencies. It is not mentioned by WM Watt in Muhammad Prophet and Statesman. I don’t have a copy of Muhammad at Medina, so if it is mentioned there, perhaps someone with a better library could enlighten me.
BREAKING NEWS I just found a copy of Muhammad at Medina on-blessed-line and the story of the poisoning is not there either. Me continues to think the story is dubious.
By the way, the URL is Muhammad at Medina
BREAKING NEWS I just found a copy of Muhammad at Medina on-blessed-line and the story of the poisoning is not there either. Me continues to think the story is dubious.
By the way, the URL is Muhammad at Medina
U
Usbek_de_Perse
Guest
ba-da-boom!
J
jakasaki
Guest
Like I said -
The hadith behind the so called poisoning is suspicious.
This Mohamad killed this woman’s family and her clan and now she’s cooking his victory meal.
The hadith behind the so called poisoning is suspicious.
This Mohamad killed this woman’s family and her clan and now she’s cooking his victory meal.
J
jakasaki
Guest
Surely you jest… … a birth certificate from 1400 years ago?
U
Usbek_de_Perse
Guest
I don’t trust certified copies. I need to see the original.
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
According to St John of Damascus, it was the Saracens, a.k.a. the Ishmaelites. According to the broadcast, both conquerors and the conquered referred to the people as such. It is not dispositive evidence one way or the other. But it raises the question about who Mohammed was, and whether or not Islam was the driving force behind Arab expansion, or the post-hoc justification for its continuance. I’m not staking a claim to any point of view. I just think it was an interesting broadcast.
Peace,
Robert
A
arabic_catholic
Guest
it’s important to know that the arabs didn’t came to the byzantine and Sassanid , shouting allah akbar , and bringing new message
if you study history , you will see that the two empires were exuhustid by great war from 600 to 625 . and before that a great plague hit the region , which caused the romans to ask more arabs to immigrate north , the names of the arabs were by the time of the conquest were ‘’ Sarecians ‘’ ‘’ Ishmaelite ‘’ ‘’ hagarins ‘’ ‘’ muhajrun ‘’ not once a muslim !! there seems to be more to a jewish and Ishmaelite alliance then we find in history book today , for example the jews called umar ‘’ the farouq ‘’ or the redemmer , because they believe he restore them to the city , yet muslim historians later on said that umar kicked the jews from arabian , and order to not allow them to enter Jerusalem , it’s seems like they made this story to cover up the 7nth century documents ! and even the name al farouq was altered to make it given by muhammad not the jews the same thing about the quran , why would the book in many verses says , it is arabic quran ? did the NT writers have to say they were writing in greek? it most reasonable to say that during the editing of the quran , someone add the phrase ‘’ it’s arabic quran ‘’ because someone was challenging this idea! and now days , that third of the text might be of christian hymn written in Syriac ! (follow Christopher Luxenberg work )
A
arabic_catholic
Guest
[660] many Arabs gathered at Jerusalem and made Mu’awiya king and he went up and sat down on Golgotha; he prayed there and went to Gethsemane and went down to the tomb of the blessed Mary to pray in it. In those days when the Arabs were gathered there with Mu’awiya, there was an earthquake. [Much of Jericho fell, as well as many nearby churches and monasteries.] In July of the same year the emirs and many Arabs gathered and gave their allegiance to Mu’awiya. Then an order went out that he should be proclaimed king in all the villages and cities of his dominion and that they should make acclamations and invocations to him. Mu’awiya also minted gold and silver, but it was not accepted because there was no cross on it. Furthermore Mu’awiya did not wear a crown like other kings in the world. He placed his throne in Damascus and refused to go to Muhammad’s throne.
Robert G. Hoyland
This was been taken from an ancient document called ‘’ The Maronite Chronicles’’ written between 658 and 665 AD ( older then any islamic documents )
and it’s talking about Muawiyah I ‘’ one of the sahaba ‘’ friends of muhammad] . how can a muslim caliph a successor of God on earth according to the early references and successor of muhammad by the later islamic traditions ] will even pray at the same place where jesus crucified ! and go visit mary tomb and pray there ?
Robert G. Hoyland
This was been taken from an ancient document called ‘’ The Maronite Chronicles’’ written between 658 and 665 AD ( older then any islamic documents )
and it’s talking about Muawiyah I ‘’ one of the sahaba ‘’ friends of muhammad] . how can a muslim caliph a successor of God on earth according to the early references and successor of muhammad by the later islamic traditions ] will even pray at the same place where jesus crucified ! and go visit mary tomb and pray there ?
U
Usbek_de_Perse
Guest
There is a lot of unresolved Christianity in Islam. Of all the biblical figures mentioned in the Qur’an, only Jesus is held to have had a virgin birth. Why is this important, if Muhammad himself is not said to be born of a virgin?
My personal view is that, probably, Muhammad, when he was a caravaner, visited the area of Syria and Palestine and really did converse with Christians and Jews. Plus, there were both Jews and Christians in Arabia. He picked up a lot. If you read the Surah of Yusuf and the story of Joseph in Genesis, you are immediately struck with the similarities. Frankly, I love the one in the Qur’an. There is an ecstatic quality to it.
Somehow Muhammad had to accept either the teachings of Christianity or the rigid monotheism of Rabbinic Judaism (there are good arguments that the monotheism of the Rabbis was a direct reaction to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, but the division between Christianity and Judaism was settled by the time of Muhammad). The Qur’an resembles the Old Testament far more than it resembles the New Testament. While Jesus has a place of prominence in the Qur’an, his teachings and his Church do not.
My personal view is that, probably, Muhammad, when he was a caravaner, visited the area of Syria and Palestine and really did converse with Christians and Jews. Plus, there were both Jews and Christians in Arabia. He picked up a lot. If you read the Surah of Yusuf and the story of Joseph in Genesis, you are immediately struck with the similarities. Frankly, I love the one in the Qur’an. There is an ecstatic quality to it.
Somehow Muhammad had to accept either the teachings of Christianity or the rigid monotheism of Rabbinic Judaism (there are good arguments that the monotheism of the Rabbis was a direct reaction to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, but the division between Christianity and Judaism was settled by the time of Muhammad). The Qur’an resembles the Old Testament far more than it resembles the New Testament. While Jesus has a place of prominence in the Qur’an, his teachings and his Church do not.
C
Credo_ergo_sum
Guest
St. John was born in Damascus 10 years after the Arab conquest of Damascus. Wouldn’t he have known if Islam was only made up in the latter half of the 7th century?
S
snarflemike
Guest
According to orthodoxwiki.org, St John was born in 676, 42 years after Damascus fell.
C
ComeHome2Rome
Guest
Thank you
One of our own Saints clearly recognized Muhammad as a true person who established the Islam, so I don’t care what some modern guy says regardless of his claim to have done indepth research. A little puzzled as to why Catholic Answers would promote his ideology that differs with that of a recognised Saint.
Moving on.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Doctrina Jacobi nuper baptizati, is an early work also and records a 634 discussion. Wiki-Pedia documents a paragraph from the work.
google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CEYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FTeaching_of_Jacob&ei=a6AAUIzXG-jG0QHircikBw&usg=AFQjCNH7MSXt4Ab0PEzApbnzIU9UZLVlJg&sig2=GfhQ3wBnwSt_5EsTH8v_qw
google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CEYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FTeaching_of_Jacob&ei=a6AAUIzXG-jG0QHircikBw&usg=AFQjCNH7MSXt4Ab0PEzApbnzIU9UZLVlJg&sig2=GfhQ3wBnwSt_5EsTH8v_qw
M
Mark_Antony
Guest
Of course Muhammad existed.There are historical references (You can read en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad ).We,as.We,as) Christians,contest not his existence,but his capacity as Prophet of God.
A
arabic_catholic
Guest
please read the document
- he was proclaiming the advent of the anointed one, the Christ who was to come ( he was talking about a christ that the jews at the time waited not be confused by Jesus )
- He says also that he has the keys of paradise,
- find out about the prophet who has appeared
the document was written between 634- 640
muhammad died in 632 , ! if you read the document it says ‘’ the prophet had appeared, coming with the Saracen ‘’ so it’s talking about a living person and this document agrees with another one by armenian bishop who claims that muhammad led an army of 12,000 jews , with saracens to take over the Holy Land ! remember the document you put says ‘’ and we jews overjoyed ‘’ because of the killing of byzantine by the arabs, all of this is older then any islamic document we posses.
- Status