[ - ] didyouknow [op] 1 point 2 weeksApr 10, 2025 17:23:00 ago (+1/-0)
As far as most people know, most of them only think that Islam was influenced by Judaism but have no idea how 1:1 Islam is to Judaism as well as having no idea that the direct role jews played in the creation of Islam was so prominent that without it, there would be no Islam. In fact, seeing just how many jews surrounded Muhammed's inner circle and how much of his philosophies and ideas were based out of Judaism, indicates strongly that Muhammed himself was probably jewish. Probably a fact kept hidden for obvious reasons.
[ - ] Eliack 1 point 2 weeksApr 10, 2025 20:03:27 ago (+1/-0)
If you believe all Muslims are Arabs/Semites (while only less than 10% actually are) then you would be right. But try telling a Berber, a Turk, an Iranian and an Indonesian that they resemble the Jews. Hahahah.
[ - ] Eliack 1 point 2 weeksApr 10, 2025 20:01:14 ago (+1/-0)
Hanifs were a small group of monotheists who claimed to be the true followers of Abraham, thus separating themselves from the Christians, Jews and Arab polytheists. But i will still give you credit Hel, if not for me you would be the person with the most knowledge about Islam on this platform. Peace!
There seems to be a close link between NW arabia and cana’an. Some people have speculated that the worship of Yahweh spread to Cana’an from arabian “midianite” polytheists. I think that there were many versions or flavors of this Yahweh/El religion practiced throughout the region. The “official” version was practiced in jerusalem but what religin would bedouins follow who could not read? Hanifs seem to have some very jewish rules about eating pork and idol worship and monotheism. Those rules came about some time between 700 and 400 bc, probably. It just seems to me that the hanifs are “lost” jews that migrated from Cana’an to Arabia.
What does the quran call jews of this period? Is it a cognate of Jew/judean/judahite? What is the arabic word?
What did Jews, Hanifs and Arabian polytheists have in common? That despite the vast geography they occupied, they all claimed to have been the true followers (and in fact descendants) of a monotheist preacher named Abraham. Sometimes the simplest explanation is the best, in our case being that these beliefs originate from the man in question. Theres no reason to repudiate this claim since it doesnt even require one to be religious, in the same manner Zoroastrianism is tracked to a single person by the whole academic West. Although there seems to have a culture of preferring a million theories with tangible sources and brainstorming in the academic sources than the much more basic but still reasonable explanation which i provided. You seem to be included in this group as well.
Quran refers to Jews as al-Yahud, distinguishing them from other monotheistic groups like Hanifs or Sabians. Also Quran regards Jews as an ethnic group who are (proudly) different from Arabs, whereas the latter 2 are traditionally associated with Arabs. İ dont think your hypothesis of lost/crypto Jews are likely, although admittedly pre-İslamic Middle East was a cluster cluck so i see how this opens way for myriads of explanations.
That despite the vast geography they occupied, they all claimed to have been the true followers (and in fact descendants) of a monotheist preacher named Abraham.
Your beliefs are based on the idea that bible traditions (and islamic ones based on them) are true . They aren’t. The story of abraham purports to take place 1000 years before his supposed descendants could read/write. So the stories are totally unreliable. After researching a little bit from secular biblical scholarship, I learned that the bible was written in layers over time, with many revisions and additions in different eras, and that the time period in question is from 7 or 800 bc to 3 or 400 bc for the OT. The earliest writers of the OT were polytheists who recognized other gods existed. Theres lots of evidence of this in the OT. There is archeological evidence of hebrews worshipping other gods (Asherah, wife of El/Yahweh, specifically alongside El/Yahweh) as late as 400 bc. Worship of El was widespread before worship of Yahweh in the Levant. El was orginally a separate god that became conflated with the yahweh, the god of more southern tribes, according to many historians, biblical scholars. Allah is of course a cognate of El/Elohim as you probably know.
The simplest argument against Abraham being the patriarch of the jews or certain clans within Islam is genetic analysis. Any descendant of Abraham should have the same Y chomosomal haplogroup or at least a subset of haplogroups that are closely related. We don’t see anything like that among jews or arabs. Interestingly the banu hashim do have a y haplogroup (j1c3d) very close to the so called “cohenim” jewish haplogroup (j1c3) which accounts for about 2 or 3 % of the jewish population and is supposedly patrilineal to Aaron according to jews (sheer speculation). Now that I look into it a bit more the cohenim group doesn’t even seem that particular to jews and may be more common in arabs. It could have been that muhammed’s hashimite ancestor and the ancestor of jewish cohens (levite priests) were the same and recent (~3 or 4 thousand years ago.) But jews themselves are patrilineally diverse (having varied Y chromosomes, unrelated within 10s of thousands of years) . Either the cohens/levites came from arabia ( an arab origin for yahweh supports this) or the hashimites/hanifs came from canaan (monotheism, worship of El/Allah by Muhammed supports this). Not only are modern (ashkenazi) jews not patrinlineally related, but ancient jews living in canaan during the biblical period were also not patrilineally related. So descent of the nation of hebrews/israelites/jews from Abraham was a myth that was untrue. The people who worshipped judaism in late iron age canaan and into the roman era were the decendents of many tribes such as the aramaeans, hittites, jebusites, edomites etc. Those “goyim” tribes were never genocided as described in Joshua— they were just assimilated.
The cult of the elite conquerors (maybe arabian pastoralists? ) was a Yahweh cult but other gods were acknowleged and worshipped. Its generally believed by academics that local El worshippers (probably farmers) were assimilated into the Yahweh cult. It was only when the levites of jerusalem began to claim that yahweh would destroy the nation if any other gods but him were worshipped, that the religion began to move toward monotheism. This new philosophy works out well for levite priests who live off sacrifice. According to many scholars, the policy shift is dated to the 7th cent bc under king josiah as does the ban on idolatry ( a form of DIY home worship that is bad for temple business). All misfortunes of the nation (drought, invasion) were blamed on worship of other gods, impiety. This henotheism eventually leads to monotheism after many centuries.
Clearly Muhammed’s hanif ancestors must have had close contact with the religion of Judah/Israel after this point to be monotheists who shun idolatry.
Well I could scribble about this all day. But I have things to do. I think relying on religious traditions to provide the simple argument is problematic. These traditions all ultimately trace back to the same source which is a false source. The Hebrews didn’t know where they came from. Genetics, archeolgy do a much better job.
a bit late, but... A sociologist, geneticist and historian? You have outdone yourself!
Even so I should say, your arguments are not without overlooked nuances. For one you are dead set at the tangibles, leaving no room for the possibles. For you the earliest source is the only evidence, anything before is a theory which must be false in all likelihood. But whilst our oldest source - namely the OT - may have been recorded in an era where polytheism was extant, that doesn't imply that monotheism wasn't simply a temporarily abandoned belief during that time, waiting to be resurrected. Take an example for, the story of Golden Calf where the hitherto monotheist Hebrews switched to polytheism the moment Moses abandoned them for a short duration. Why do you think this wouldn't happen again, especially when they were so thoroughly influenced by their still polytheistic neighbors? From a religious perspective, the fact they kept receiving so many prophets in succession is because they kept deviating all the time (just like today). For two the book is rife with passages explicitly describing a monotheist culture, why do you think they would record this if it had no grain of truth to it especially when it openly refuted their polytheistic practises? Perhaps they juggled between the two at times, but there's no good reason to claim monotheism is a much later development.
I think the relationship between Hebrews and El is a convoluted one. I will attribute this to the difficulty of identifying God. Are the gods of Christians and Muslims the same? How about Ahura Mazda? Or Aten? Or Tengri? Perhaps we have different names, natures or motives attributed to them, but at what point do they become distinct entities? Muhammad didn't claim to bring a new god, he threw away all the other minor gods the polytheistic Arabs worshipped, and challenged the established beliefs pertaining to god, but it was still considered the same god. Likewise what stopped the Hebrews from holding the belief that Yahweh was simply the supreme god El (or vice versa), but interpreted differently? This would also explain how easily one was absorbed by the other (and later corrupted for that matter).
I don't have much to say about your hypothesis about the origins of Jews, but i'm curious to why your argument seems to imply that we somehow have Abraham's dna for comparison? That aside, common sense would dictate that if Abraham was a real person who married and settled in a crowded geography like Levant then almost everyone would eventually share his genes. Like how many Greeks carry Socrates's genes, even if ever so lightly. But that's a small matter, Jews could descend from Indians for all i care.
Let me disabuse you about Hanifs: they weren't necessarily a separate religious group like Jews, but a general term given to any person who shunned polytheism at one point in their lives. Abraham is mentioned as a Hanif in Quran, just as many maverick figures like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zayd_ibn_Amr . So it's not given that Muhammad's ancestors were necessarily influenced by Jews.
Lastly i should clarify, my purpose here is not to refute you which would be difficult given how cogent and well packed your arguments are. But instead to provide reasonable alternatives which in turn carry the same qualities. We won't see eye to eye of course, you speak from strictly a secular perspective while i do from a religious one. But it has been a luscious discussion so hats off! You are single-handedly inhibiting this platform's IQ from dropping to 2 digits.
No way. This is more entertaining than insulting dangus.
For one you are dead set at the tangibles, leaving no room for the possibles.
Yes I am. I don’t think its the job of the historian to account for every possibility that could have happened.
that doesn't imply that monotheism wasn't simply a temporarily abandoned belief during that time
That is not the simplest explanation. That seems like a somewhat convoluted explanation from a person with a bias.
Take an example for, the story of Golden Calf
Archeologists and historians say there’s no historical basis for the exodus account. If a large number of semites lived in egypt for a time and then migrated back to the levant through the desert ~ 1200 bc, there would be evidence of such a migration. There would be egyptian influence in the artifacts of that period. There’s nothing like that. In fact during the period Moses supposedly led the jews out of Egypt, Egypt controlled a large portion of Cana’an (southern coastal region.) But exodus/leviticus/numbers/deuteronomy never mention that Egyptians are in control of large parts of the country they are passing through/taking over under Moses and Joshua. That is because the story was made up centuries later by people who could not remember a time when Egypt controlled Canaan. There’s also no evidence of the great genocide of the goyim tribes that Joshua and his army supposedly accomplished. The golden calf story was probably made up during a time when the southern kingdom of Judah was feuding with the northern kingdom of Israel and the northern kingdom seemed to incorporate bulls in their religious worship. The Levite priests in Jerusalem demanded that the people of the northern kingdom cease all worship outside of Jerusalem ( which would force the northerners to have to travel long distances to make sacrifice in the south). This was unreasonable to the northern kingdom. This is why bulls ( and every cultural practice particular to the north ) were demonized by the levites of jerusalem. And why the heresy of the Israelites in exodus took the form of a bull.
I know it is a very black pill to take that large parts of our religious traditions are totally false, but there is lots of evidence to dispute almost every major event described in the bible. All the taboos and strange rules dictated by the bible can be understood in the context of the political struggles of that time: struggles between the north and south kingdoms, struggles with “foreign” invaders like babylonians and aramaens, etc, and struggles between commoners and elites. Its like how democrats love masks and republicans hate them. An entire culture can grow from such a conflict were masks are taboo or holy. Political conflicts are the source of many of these seemingly arbitrary commands from god.
For two the book is rife with passages explicitly describing a monotheist culture, why do you think they would record this if it had no grain of truth to it especially when it openly refuted their polytheistic practises? Perhaps they juggled between the two at times, but there's no good reason to claim monotheism is a much later development.
Hebrew/Israelite culture didn’t exist until ~1000 bc. They link that date to the archeological record and to the references of Israelites/hebrews by nearby civilizations with written records. They know approximately when Yahweh began to be worshipped in the area and which gods were worshipped in the area before then. There was a totally different culture in Canaan during the bronze age. All cultures everywhere were polytheistic until the middle to late iron age. If you reread the OT you will realize there are as many references to other gods existing as there are to only one god existing. You can just search “evidence of polytheism in the bible” if you are interested. “The song of moses” is one important instance of this. Some older versions of the bible very explicitly describe other gods besides Yahweh in Song of Moses.
Monotheism didn’t happen all at once. It happened for a political/econmic reason. Wiping out worship of all other gods would have been difficult for most early societies spread over a large area. Its not equally as likely as polytheism to have occured. Personally, I think theres hints in the bible that polytheism is far more widespread than the bible claims in canaan. Do the people really just keep turning away from monotheism? Vacillating back and forth between polytheism and monotheism? Or was a tyrannical regime of priests trying to force henotheism on a group of people that never really accepted it, at least until very late? The bible is largely political PR for the priestly caste and you can’t believe that they are describing the country as it really is at any time— they inject their spin, just like all politicians. The bible is propaganda. Ancient propaganda.
I think the relationship between Hebrews and El is a convoluted one. I will attribute this to the difficulty of identifying God. Are the gods of Christians and Muslims the same? How about Ahura Mazda? Or Aten? Or Tengri?
Conquests and religions often go hand in hand. The beliefs of conquering invaders often become the basis of new religious regimes in conquered societies. Conquerors, in order to gain favor with the conquered, will identify their gods with the native gods. This makes sense for priests who gain power by attracting new believers. This is probably the case with El and Yahweh. Its certainly the case with Zeus/deus (greek god) and yahweh. And the name “god” was an epithet of a germanic god, probably Woden, originally.
Muhammad didn't claim to bring a new god, he threw away all the other minor gods the polytheistic Arabs worshipped,
Im sure you know theres some debate about that.
Likewise what stopped the Hebrews from holding the belief that Yahweh was simply the supreme god El (or vice versa), but interpreted differently? This would also explain how easily one was absorbed by the other (and later corrupted for that matter).
Not sure what you mean here. You mean, why didn’t the hebrews simply discard either El or Yahweh as Muhammed did (according to some)?
I don't have much to say about your hypothesis about the origins of Jews, but i'm curious to why your argument seems to imply that we somehow have Abraham's dna for comparison? That aside, common sense would dictate that if Abraham was a real person who married and settled in a crowded geography like Levant then almost everyone would eventually share his genes. Like how many Greeks carry Socrates's genes, even if ever so lightly. But that's a small matter, Jews could descend from Indians for all i care.
We don’t have Abrahams dna. But we know that all the men of a common patrilineal ancestor will have the same Y chromosome. The Y chomosome doesnt mix with other chomosomes the way all other chromosomes do. So it is a carbon copy of your great great great great etc grandfather’s Y chromosome except for very infrequent mutations. Geneticists know how often those mutations occur so they can estimate based on the number of mutations or differences between two Y chromosomes when a common patrilineal ancestor lived. Many jews have Y chromosome E which means the latest common patrilineal ancestor they share with non-Es lived 80 thousand years ago or more. Many other jews are J1 or J2. J1 and J2 diverge like 20 thousand years ago. Given that the 3 most common Y chromosomal haplogroups diverges so long ago, Jews could not possibly descend patrilineally from a guy that lived 4000 years ago. This is significant because a key claim of jews/hebrews is/was that they descended from a single patriarch, Abraham. Many muslim arab clans also claim this. So these clans and jews should all have the same Y chromosome. But they don’t.
Compare this to the Y chromosomes of Ireland— 80% of the males descend from a single male ancestor who lived around 4000 years ago— their Y chromosomes support this. It doesn’t say anything about the rest of their genetics. But it guarantees that their patrilineal descent is the same within a few thousand years. Its not the same as the socrates example. With socrates you are talking about autosomes.
Lastly i should clarify, my purpose here is not to refute you which would be difficult given how cogent and well packed your arguments are. But instead to provide reasonable alternatives which in turn carry the same qualities. We won't see eye to eye of course, you speak from strictly a secular perspective while i do from a religious one. But it has been a luscious discussion so hats off! You are single-handedly inhibiting this platform's IQ from dropping to 2 digits.
Thanks, that so nice of you. I never meant to make this reply so long. Ive been typing forever. But I like these sort of exchanges because everybody here does not like to get intellectual, if you know what I mean. I’m obviously not a professional historian or theologian, I just like to research this stuff, and there’s no way to be certain about most of it. If you’re interested in a good source on the bible in a historical context, I recommend Christine Hayes’ OT lecture series on youtube on the yale courses channel. She does not take an atheist or theist position in her lectures and she is very informative about how scholars think the bible was written and by whom, based on archeological knowlege of the region and period.
Your arguments are well elaborated, although not scrupulous.
I don’t think it's the job of the historian to account for every possibility that could have happened
It is a poor historian with tunnel vision who latches on to a single explanation, when there are alternatives even if less accustomed to.
Archeologists and historians say there’s no historical basis for the exodus account
Absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Your argument is built upon the assumption that every historical event that has occured must have been recorded in plain sight. Which makes even less sense in our present case; If a Pharaoh suffered humiliating plagues among other miracles, lost his army, and was drowned in a miraculous defeat while chasing runaway slaves… would that be carved or written down by the state officials while Egypt was already well-known for avoiding the recording of its shameful events?
There would be Egyptian influence in the artifacts of that period
Funny you brought this up, when Jews are notorious for refusing to assimilate. They remained just for a few centuries in a state they were so hostile against, and that 3 millenia ago, i don't think this is a strong argument.
Bible never mentions that Egyptians were in control of large parts of the country they are passing through
However Quran does. The Israelis "inherit" the blessed lands of Levant from the Egyptians tyrants in 7:137 and 26:59.
There’s also no evidence of the great genocide of the goyim tribes
Since you are a fan of making theories on account of practical use, i could say that they made up this narrative to justify their aggressive policies (see Palestine). But even without that, i beg your pardon, but stop rejecting everything which we have no evidence for unless it's an extremely unlikely account like Bible mentioning Anglo-Saxons fighting Persians. Also stop feeling like you have to force a reason for every past phenomenon with such confidence. You avowedly reject any claim without evidence yet your sociologist background makes you try and come up with an explanation for any human behavior. Maybe they did it because of this, maybe because of that... Saying "but it makes sense!" doesn't save you either. It might earn you applauses in secular (in reality anti-religious) academic circles, but not in a more objective setting.
The bible is largely political PR for the priestly caste and you can’t believe that they are describing the country as it really is at any time
I know better than to trust the kikes to accurately describe the situation. Obviously OT isn't as truthful as Jews/Christians would believe, but that shouldn't impel us to discard the entirety of the book when even the historian consensus is to be merely more picky. Especially when it's our main source.
To wrap up my position, so we are clear on this... Monotheism dates back to the 12th century BC after a man named Moses kickstarted it in Egypt, albeit the Hebrews were quick to dilute it with polytheistic influences and it wasn't until the date you mentioned that they started gradually restoring its monotheistic nature by the elites, more likely out of piety rather than material considerations. I will also add this, if i haven't made your eyes roll enough already, that the fact all the names for the Jewish deity (El, Yahweh, you tell me) were the same as neighboring polytheistic ones can be attributed to the fact that the Jews who were stranded at an ocean of familiar polytheism came to regard their own god and those of the neighbors to be the one and same thus paving the way for the later polytheistic injunctions. Your own explanation is also fine, that "the conquerors, in order to gain favor with the conquered, will identify their gods with the native gods". I'm adding this in case you held the belief that because the Hebrews referred to their god the same as those cultures before them, must mean the religion was a continuity and at no point was there monotheism introduced even if short lived. I hope you understand my flow, else i risk looking like an idiot.
Something about Muhammad, some about dna, etc
Not really relevant to our talk so i will save you the time
I just like to research this stuff, and there’s no way to be certain about most of it
I should have started reading your text from the bottom, heh. It's like we are Ivan and Alyosha from TBK, one talking from educated assumptions and the other from faith. One of these can't be proven since in the end it's still an opinion, and the other won't be since you are apparently a diehard atheist. But i will accept the stalemate, and conclude this discussion here since we seem to have covered the essentials. Until the next good one, hopefully sooner than later!
[ - ] Eliack 1 point 2 weeksApr 10, 2025 19:46:18 ago (+1/-0)
What a pile of garbage. Muhammad had at one point tens of thousands of people accompanying him. Being a Sahabi/Companion was nothing special! And the overwhelming majority of these Companions were ex-pagans too. With very few Christians, Jews, and Hanifs.
Fun fact, Muhammad either massacred or kicked the Jews from Arabia on 3 occassions until few to none remained. Quran is also filled with plenty of antisemitic passages. Anyone who calls Islam an offshoot of Judaism should do the world a favor and shoot themselves in the face.
Fuck off muzzie. It's convenient that you ignore the other damning details that's included in the post that shows that these individuals weren't just ordinary ''companions'', like the jew Hudhayfah, which was the companion of Muhammed that he felt the most trust towards.
Also, certain jewish clans were part of Muhammeds original ''ummah'' so there goes your bullshit statement of ''Muhammad either massacred or kicked the Jews from Arabia on 3 occassions until few to none remained'' out the window. The jews are part of the ''people of the book'', meaning they are allowed to exist in Muslim society and practice their religion. Let's also not forget that Muhammed and the early Muslims prayed originally in the direction of JERUSALEM and not Mecca.
Muhammed was a pedo and most likely a jew and Islam is a jew pedo religion. Go fuck off with your taqiyya somewhere else, it won't work here.
Muhammed sometimes allied with jews and at other times massacred them. To argue that muslims are always carrying out a jewish agenda is just simplistic. We have a habit on this forum of explaining every asshole on the planet that we don’t like as an agent of the jews. Thats clearly not true.
You forget to add that he massacred jews that were opposed to him. This doesn't take away from the jews who he surrounded himself with and how influential they were in how his thinking developed and how the religion of Islam turned out. You think it's by chance that Islam is so similar to Judaism? It makes sense when you see just how many of his close companions were jewish converts, some well versed in the Torah.
No one can argue against the fact of how beneficial Islam was to the jews from the very start, the Muslim conquests provided new business opportunities for jewish international traders and the intellectuals because not only did it create a huge market for them, but only a few restrictions were imposed on their trade unlike in the areas controlled by Christians. Oh by the way, the Muslim army sure was quick to march towards Jerusalem weren't they?
I guess it's just a coincidence then that when the Muslim did capture Palestine, they removed all the restrictions that had been imposed on the Jews by the Byzantines. An army that carries out agendas that just happen to be very beneficial to jews? Jeez, what's the modern equivalent example of that? hmm.
In this era in particular, it's quite clear the Muslims were carrying out a jewish agenda. Sure at certain times, there were Muslim leaders who didn't get along with jews, but that was more the exception and not the rule. Muslims and Jews overall has had a very cozy relationship with each other, that relationship went sour when Israel was spawned.
The only major companion here is Ammar and he was a well known pagan! You are gonna teach me my own religion nigger? You should change your name out of embarrassment. You didnt do any research, you simply shared an anti-İslamic image you found on the İnternet. İ meant Jew in a religious sense, obviously the very few Jews who chose to convert remained while the rest were rooted out. Jerusalem was holy for all 3 religions but Muhammad changed his direction to Mecca precisely to avoid associations with kikes, but here we are once again. Taqiyyah isnt lying about religions teachings either but about being a Muslim so you avoid getting hurt, do more research before you spread misinformation.
Don't pretend as if you are willing to entertain anything that is even remotely critical of Islam. Your mind is set to defend it no matter what so it doesn't really matter what information I share or where it comes from, you're just going to continue to deny, downplay or lie. Look at 'jew-wise' Christians for example, in order for them to continue to cling on to their religion, they will ignore all the passages from Bible itself that makes it very clear that Jesus was Jewish, in order to pretend that he wasn't actually a Jew. It's really the same story with you muslims.
precisely to avoid associations with kikes
Or maybe he realized it was getting a bit too obvious that Islam was Judaism 2.0.
Taqiyyah isnt lying about religions teachings either but about being a Muslim so you avoid getting hurt, do more research before you spread misinformation.
Your taqiyyah is you poisoning the well is by disassociating Islam from the jewish problem. And here you are trying to downplay the heavy jewish involvement in the creation of Islam. Well here's the thing, destroying Islam is part of solving the jewish problem, how's that grab you?
I think a better way to put it is that christianity, modern judaism, and islam were all heavily inspired by the religion of of the ancient hebrews, which is not modern judaism
[ + ] NaturalSelectionistWorker
[ - ] NaturalSelectionistWorker 0 points 2 weeksApr 10, 2025 15:36:54 ago (+1/-1)
Just kidding, everyone but muslims and maybe groypers knows islam came from jews.
[ + ] didyouknow
[ - ] didyouknow [op] 1 point 2 weeksApr 10, 2025 17:23:00 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Master_Foo
[ - ] Master_Foo 0 points 2 weeksApr 10, 2025 16:21:56 ago (+1/-1)
Arabs are just Jews that moved to Arabia.
Let's not pretend one kind of Semite is different than another kind of Semite.
[ + ] xmasskull
[ - ] xmasskull 0 points 2 weeksApr 10, 2025 17:43:39 ago (+0/-0)
Well done!
[ + ] WNwoman
[ - ] WNwoman 0 points 2 weeksApr 10, 2025 16:19:16 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Zyklonbeekeeper
[ - ] Zyklonbeekeeper 0 points 2 weeksApr 10, 2025 16:35:51 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Eliack
[ - ] Eliack 1 point 2 weeksApr 10, 2025 20:03:27 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] dirtywhiteboy
[ - ] dirtywhiteboy 0 points 2 weeksApr 10, 2025 17:49:25 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 2 weeksApr 10, 2025 18:27:02 ago (+0/-0)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashim_ibn_Abd_Manaf
[ + ] Eliack
[ - ] Eliack 1 point 2 weeksApr 10, 2025 20:01:14 ago (+1/-0)
But i will still give you credit Hel, if not for me you would be the person with the most knowledge about Islam on this platform.
Peace!
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 2 weeksApr 10, 2025 21:32:01 ago (+0/-0)
What does the quran call jews of this period? Is it a cognate of Jew/judean/judahite? What is the arabic word?
[ + ] Eliack
[ - ] Eliack 0 points 2 weeksApr 11, 2025 05:00:20 ago (+0/-0)
Quran refers to Jews as al-Yahud, distinguishing them from other monotheistic groups like Hanifs or Sabians. Also Quran regards Jews as an ethnic group who are (proudly) different from Arabs, whereas the latter 2 are traditionally associated with Arabs. İ dont think your hypothesis of lost/crypto Jews are likely, although admittedly pre-İslamic Middle East was a cluster cluck so i see how this opens way for myriads of explanations.
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 2 weeksApr 11, 2025 11:50:35 ago (+0/-0)
Your beliefs are based on the idea that bible traditions (and islamic ones based on them) are true . They aren’t. The story of abraham purports to take place 1000 years before his supposed descendants could read/write. So the stories are totally unreliable. After researching a little bit from secular biblical scholarship, I learned that the bible was written in layers over time, with many revisions and additions in different eras, and that the time period in question is from 7 or 800 bc to 3 or 400 bc for the OT. The earliest writers of the OT were polytheists who recognized other gods existed. Theres lots of evidence of this in the OT. There is archeological evidence of hebrews worshipping other gods (Asherah, wife of El/Yahweh, specifically alongside El/Yahweh) as late as 400 bc. Worship of El was widespread before worship of Yahweh in the Levant. El was orginally a separate god that became conflated with the yahweh, the god of more southern tribes, according to many historians, biblical scholars. Allah is of course a cognate of El/Elohim as you probably know.
The simplest argument against Abraham being the patriarch of the jews or certain clans within Islam is genetic analysis. Any descendant of Abraham should have the same Y chomosomal haplogroup or at least a subset of haplogroups that are closely related. We don’t see anything like that among jews or arabs. Interestingly the banu hashim do have a y haplogroup (j1c3d) very close to the so called “cohenim” jewish haplogroup (j1c3) which accounts for about 2 or 3 % of the jewish population and is supposedly patrilineal to Aaron according to jews (sheer speculation). Now that I look into it a bit more the cohenim group doesn’t even seem that particular to jews and may be more common in arabs. It could have been that muhammed’s hashimite ancestor and the ancestor of jewish cohens (levite priests) were the same and recent (~3 or 4 thousand years ago.) But jews themselves are patrilineally diverse (having varied Y chromosomes, unrelated within 10s of thousands of years) . Either the cohens/levites came from arabia ( an arab origin for yahweh supports this) or the hashimites/hanifs came from canaan (monotheism, worship of El/Allah by Muhammed supports this). Not only are modern (ashkenazi) jews not patrinlineally related, but ancient jews living in canaan during the biblical period were also not patrilineally related. So descent of the nation of hebrews/israelites/jews from Abraham was a myth that was untrue. The people who worshipped judaism in late iron age canaan and into the roman era were the decendents of many tribes such as the aramaeans, hittites, jebusites, edomites etc. Those “goyim” tribes were never genocided as described in Joshua— they were just assimilated.
The cult of the elite conquerors (maybe arabian pastoralists? ) was a Yahweh cult but other gods were acknowleged and worshipped. Its generally believed by academics that local El worshippers (probably farmers) were assimilated into the Yahweh cult. It was only when the levites of jerusalem began to claim that yahweh would destroy the nation if any other gods but him were worshipped, that the religion began to move toward monotheism. This new philosophy works out well for levite priests who live off sacrifice. According to many scholars, the policy shift is dated to the 7th cent bc under king josiah as does the ban on idolatry ( a form of DIY home worship that is bad for temple business). All misfortunes of the nation (drought, invasion) were blamed on worship of other gods, impiety. This henotheism eventually leads to monotheism after many centuries.
Clearly Muhammed’s hanif ancestors must have had close contact with the religion of Judah/Israel after this point to be monotheists who shun idolatry.
Well I could scribble about this all day. But I have things to do. I think relying on religious traditions to provide the simple argument is problematic. These traditions all ultimately trace back to the same source which is a false source. The Hebrews didn’t know where they came from. Genetics, archeolgy do a much better job.
[ + ] Eliack
[ - ] Eliack 0 points 2 weeksApr 13, 2025 17:56:33 ago (+0/-0)
A sociologist, geneticist and historian? You have outdone yourself!
Even so I should say, your arguments are not without overlooked nuances. For one you are dead set at the tangibles, leaving no room for the possibles. For you the earliest source is the only evidence, anything before is a theory which must be false in all likelihood. But whilst our oldest source - namely the OT - may have been recorded in an era where polytheism was extant, that doesn't imply that monotheism wasn't simply a temporarily abandoned belief during that time, waiting to be resurrected. Take an example for, the story of Golden Calf where the hitherto monotheist Hebrews switched to polytheism the moment Moses abandoned them for a short duration. Why do you think this wouldn't happen again, especially when they were so thoroughly influenced by their still polytheistic neighbors? From a religious perspective, the fact they kept receiving so many prophets in succession is because they kept deviating all the time (just like today).
For two the book is rife with passages explicitly describing a monotheist culture, why do you think they would record this if it had no grain of truth to it especially when it openly refuted their polytheistic practises? Perhaps they juggled between the two at times, but there's no good reason to claim monotheism is a much later development.
I think the relationship between Hebrews and El is a convoluted one. I will attribute this to the difficulty of identifying God. Are the gods of Christians and Muslims the same? How about Ahura Mazda? Or Aten? Or Tengri? Perhaps we have different names, natures or motives attributed to them, but at what point do they become distinct entities? Muhammad didn't claim to bring a new god, he threw away all the other minor gods the polytheistic Arabs worshipped, and challenged the established beliefs pertaining to god, but it was still considered the same god. Likewise what stopped the Hebrews from holding the belief that Yahweh was simply the supreme god El (or vice versa), but interpreted differently? This would also explain how easily one was absorbed by the other (and later corrupted for that matter).
I don't have much to say about your hypothesis about the origins of Jews, but i'm curious to why your argument seems to imply that we somehow have Abraham's dna for comparison? That aside, common sense would dictate that if Abraham was a real person who married and settled in a crowded geography like Levant then almost everyone would eventually share his genes. Like how many Greeks carry Socrates's genes, even if ever so lightly. But that's a small matter, Jews could descend from Indians for all i care.
Let me disabuse you about Hanifs: they weren't necessarily a separate religious group like Jews, but a general term given to any person who shunned polytheism at one point in their lives. Abraham is mentioned as a Hanif in Quran, just as many maverick figures like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zayd_ibn_Amr . So it's not given that Muhammad's ancestors were necessarily influenced by Jews.
Lastly i should clarify, my purpose here is not to refute you which would be difficult given how cogent and well packed your arguments are. But instead to provide reasonable alternatives which in turn carry the same qualities. We won't see eye to eye of course, you speak from strictly a secular perspective while i do from a religious one. But it has been a luscious discussion so hats off! You are single-handedly inhibiting this platform's IQ from dropping to 2 digits.
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 2 weeksApr 13, 2025 22:04:25 ago (+0/-0)
No way. This is more entertaining than insulting dangus.
Yes I am. I don’t think its the job of the historian to account for every possibility that could have happened.
That is not the simplest explanation. That seems like a somewhat convoluted explanation from a person with a bias.
Archeologists and historians say there’s no historical basis for the exodus account. If a large number of semites lived in egypt for a time and then migrated back to the levant through the desert ~ 1200 bc, there would be evidence of such a migration. There would be egyptian influence in the artifacts of that period. There’s nothing like that. In fact during the period Moses supposedly led the jews out of Egypt, Egypt controlled a large portion of Cana’an (southern coastal region.) But exodus/leviticus/numbers/deuteronomy never mention that Egyptians are in control of large parts of the country they are passing through/taking over under Moses and Joshua. That is because the story was made up centuries later by people who could not remember a time when Egypt controlled Canaan. There’s also no evidence of the great genocide of the goyim tribes that Joshua and his army supposedly accomplished. The golden calf story was probably made up during a time when the southern kingdom of Judah was feuding with the northern kingdom of Israel and the northern kingdom seemed to incorporate bulls in their religious worship. The Levite priests in Jerusalem demanded that the people of the northern kingdom cease all worship outside of Jerusalem ( which would force the northerners to have to travel long distances to make sacrifice in the south). This was unreasonable to the northern kingdom. This is why bulls ( and every cultural practice particular to the north ) were demonized by the levites of jerusalem. And why the heresy of the Israelites in exodus took the form of a bull.
I know it is a very black pill to take that large parts of our religious traditions are totally false, but there is lots of evidence to dispute almost every major event described in the bible. All the taboos and strange rules dictated by the bible can be understood in the context of the political struggles of that time: struggles between the north and south kingdoms, struggles with “foreign” invaders like babylonians and aramaens, etc, and struggles between commoners and elites. Its like how democrats love masks and republicans hate them. An entire culture can grow from such a conflict were masks are taboo or holy. Political conflicts are the source of many of these seemingly arbitrary commands from god.
Hebrew/Israelite culture didn’t exist until ~1000 bc. They link that date to the archeological record and to the references of Israelites/hebrews by nearby civilizations with written records. They know approximately when Yahweh began to be worshipped in the area and which gods were worshipped in the area before then. There was a totally different culture in Canaan during the bronze age. All cultures everywhere were polytheistic until the middle to late iron age. If you reread the OT you will realize there are as many references to other gods existing as there are to only one god existing. You can just search “evidence of polytheism in the bible” if you are interested. “The song of moses” is one important instance of this. Some older versions of the bible very explicitly describe other gods besides Yahweh in Song of Moses.
Monotheism didn’t happen all at once. It happened for a political/econmic reason. Wiping out worship of all other gods would have been difficult for most early societies spread over a large area. Its not equally as likely as polytheism to have occured. Personally, I think theres hints in the bible that polytheism is far more widespread than the bible claims in canaan. Do the people really just keep turning away from monotheism? Vacillating back and forth between polytheism and monotheism? Or was a tyrannical regime of priests trying to force henotheism on a group of people that never really accepted it, at least until very late? The bible is largely political PR for the priestly caste and you can’t believe that they are describing the country as it really is at any time— they inject their spin, just like all politicians. The bible is propaganda. Ancient propaganda.
Conquests and religions often go hand in hand. The beliefs of conquering invaders often become the basis of new religious regimes in conquered societies. Conquerors, in order to gain favor with the conquered, will identify their gods with the native gods. This makes sense for priests who gain power by attracting new believers. This is probably the case with El and Yahweh. Its certainly the case with Zeus/deus (greek god) and yahweh. And the name “god” was an epithet of a germanic god, probably Woden, originally.
Im sure you know theres some debate about that.
Not sure what you mean here. You mean, why didn’t the hebrews simply discard either El or Yahweh as Muhammed did (according to some)?
We don’t have Abrahams dna. But we know that all the men of a common patrilineal ancestor will have the same Y chromosome. The Y chomosome doesnt mix with other chomosomes the way all other chromosomes do. So it is a carbon copy of your great great great great etc grandfather’s Y chromosome except for very infrequent mutations. Geneticists know how often those mutations occur so they can estimate based on the number of mutations or differences between two Y chromosomes when a common patrilineal ancestor lived. Many jews have Y chromosome E which means the latest common patrilineal ancestor they share with non-Es lived 80 thousand years ago or more. Many other jews are J1 or J2. J1 and J2 diverge like 20 thousand years ago. Given that the 3 most common Y chromosomal haplogroups diverges so long ago, Jews could not possibly descend patrilineally from a guy that lived 4000 years ago. This is significant because a key claim of jews/hebrews is/was that they descended from a single patriarch, Abraham. Many muslim arab clans also claim this. So these clans and jews should all have the same Y chromosome. But they don’t.
Compare this to the Y chromosomes of Ireland— 80% of the males descend from a single male ancestor who lived around 4000 years ago— their Y chromosomes support this. It doesn’t say anything about the rest of their genetics. But it guarantees that their patrilineal descent is the same within a few thousand years. Its not the same as the socrates example. With socrates you are talking about autosomes.
Thanks, that so nice of you. I never meant to make this reply so long. Ive been typing forever. But I like these sort of exchanges because everybody here does not like to get intellectual, if you know what I mean. I’m obviously not a professional historian or theologian, I just like to research this stuff, and there’s no way to be certain about most of it. If you’re interested in a good source on the bible in a historical context, I recommend Christine Hayes’ OT lecture series on youtube on the yale courses channel. She does not take an atheist or theist position in her lectures and she is very informative about how scholars think the bible was written and by whom, based on archeological knowlege of the region and period.
[ + ] Eliack
[ - ] Eliack 0 points 2 weeksApr 15, 2025 22:07:39 ago (+0/-0)
It is a poor historian with tunnel vision who latches on to a single explanation, when there are alternatives even if less accustomed to.
Absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Your argument is built upon the assumption that every historical event that has occured must have been recorded in plain sight. Which makes even less sense in our present case; If a Pharaoh suffered humiliating plagues among other miracles, lost his army, and was drowned in a miraculous defeat while chasing runaway slaves… would that be carved or written down by the state officials while Egypt was already well-known for avoiding the recording of its shameful events?
Funny you brought this up, when Jews are notorious for refusing to assimilate. They remained just for a few centuries in a state they were so hostile against, and that 3 millenia ago, i don't think this is a strong argument.
However Quran does. The Israelis "inherit" the blessed lands of Levant from the Egyptians tyrants in 7:137 and 26:59.
Since you are a fan of making theories on account of practical use, i could say that they made up this narrative to justify their aggressive policies (see Palestine). But even without that, i beg your pardon, but stop rejecting everything which we have no evidence for unless it's an extremely unlikely account like Bible mentioning Anglo-Saxons fighting Persians. Also stop feeling like you have to force a reason for every past phenomenon with such confidence. You avowedly reject any claim without evidence yet your sociologist background makes you try and come up with an explanation for any human behavior. Maybe they did it because of this, maybe because of that... Saying "but it makes sense!" doesn't save you either. It might earn you applauses in secular (in reality anti-religious) academic circles, but not in a more objective setting.
I know better than to trust the kikes to accurately describe the situation. Obviously OT isn't as truthful as Jews/Christians would believe, but that shouldn't impel us to discard the entirety of the book when even the historian consensus is to be merely more picky. Especially when it's our main source.
To wrap up my position, so we are clear on this... Monotheism dates back to the 12th century BC after a man named Moses kickstarted it in Egypt, albeit the Hebrews were quick to dilute it with polytheistic influences and it wasn't until the date you mentioned that they started gradually restoring its monotheistic nature by the elites, more likely out of piety rather than material considerations. I will also add this, if i haven't made your eyes roll enough already, that the fact all the names for the Jewish deity (El, Yahweh, you tell me) were the same as neighboring polytheistic ones can be attributed to the fact that the Jews who were stranded at an ocean of familiar polytheism came to regard their own god and those of the neighbors to be the one and same thus paving the way for the later polytheistic injunctions. Your own explanation is also fine, that "the conquerors, in order to gain favor with the conquered, will identify their gods with the native gods". I'm adding this in case you held the belief that because the Hebrews referred to their god the same as those cultures before them, must mean the religion was a continuity and at no point was there monotheism introduced even if short lived. I hope you understand my flow, else i risk looking like an idiot.
Not really relevant to our talk so i will save you the time
I should have started reading your text from the bottom, heh. It's like we are Ivan and Alyosha from TBK, one talking from educated assumptions and the other from faith. One of these can't be proven since in the end it's still an opinion, and the other won't be since you are apparently a diehard atheist. But i will accept the stalemate, and conclude this discussion here since we seem to have covered the essentials. Until the next good one, hopefully sooner than later!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KW5kcUUu2Ac
[ + ] Eliack
[ - ] Eliack 1 point 2 weeksApr 10, 2025 19:46:18 ago (+1/-0)
And the overwhelming majority of these Companions were ex-pagans too. With very few Christians, Jews, and Hanifs.
Fun fact, Muhammad either massacred or kicked the Jews from Arabia on 3 occassions until few to none remained. Quran is also filled with plenty of antisemitic passages. Anyone who calls Islam an offshoot of Judaism should do the world a favor and shoot themselves in the face.
[ + ] didyouknow
[ - ] didyouknow [op] 0 points 2 weeksApr 10, 2025 20:16:15 ago (+1/-1)
Also, certain jewish clans were part of Muhammeds original ''ummah'' so there goes your bullshit statement of ''Muhammad either massacred or kicked the Jews from Arabia on 3 occassions until few to none remained'' out the window. The jews are part of the ''people of the book'', meaning they are allowed to exist in Muslim society and practice their religion. Let's also not forget that Muhammed and the early Muslims prayed originally in the direction of JERUSALEM and not Mecca.
Muhammed was a pedo and most likely a jew and Islam is a jew pedo religion. Go fuck off with your taqiyya somewhere else, it won't work here.
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 1 point 2 weeksApr 10, 2025 22:03:17 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] didyouknow
[ - ] didyouknow [op] 0 points 2 weeksApr 10, 2025 22:27:30 ago (+0/-0)*
No one can argue against the fact of how beneficial Islam was to the jews from the very start, the Muslim conquests provided new business opportunities for jewish international traders and the intellectuals because not only did it create a huge market for them, but only a few restrictions were imposed on their trade unlike in the areas controlled by Christians. Oh by the way, the Muslim army sure was quick to march towards Jerusalem weren't they?
I guess it's just a coincidence then that when the Muslim did capture Palestine, they removed all the restrictions that had been imposed on the Jews by the Byzantines. An army that carries out agendas that just happen to be very beneficial to jews? Jeez, what's the modern equivalent example of that? hmm.
In this era in particular, it's quite clear the Muslims were carrying out a jewish agenda. Sure at certain times, there were Muslim leaders who didn't get along with jews, but that was more the exception and not the rule. Muslims and Jews overall has had a very cozy relationship with each other, that relationship went sour when Israel was spawned.
[ + ] Eliack
[ - ] Eliack 0 points 2 weeksApr 11, 2025 04:06:47 ago (+0/-0)
İ meant Jew in a religious sense, obviously the very few Jews who chose to convert remained while the rest were rooted out.
Jerusalem was holy for all 3 religions but Muhammad changed his direction to Mecca precisely to avoid associations with kikes, but here we are once again.
Taqiyyah isnt lying about religions teachings either but about being a Muslim so you avoid getting hurt, do more research before you spread misinformation.
[ + ] didyouknow
[ - ] didyouknow [op] 0 points 2 weeksApr 11, 2025 04:28:23 ago (+0/-0)
Or maybe he realized it was getting a bit too obvious that Islam was Judaism 2.0.
Your taqiyyah is you poisoning the well is by disassociating Islam from the jewish problem. And here you are trying to downplay the heavy jewish involvement in the creation of Islam. Well here's the thing, destroying Islam is part of solving the jewish problem, how's that grab you?
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 2 weeksApr 10, 2025 21:56:24 ago (+0/-0)