This episode is my dream come true. Fred Donner is the first inspiration for me to stepping into historical-critical studies of early Islam. I'm glad you finally featured him in the channel.
I did my own historical research before I saw This video...and I also came to the conclusion that we were called the believers and not Muslims.. I felt blessed after getting my own research confirmed with this video ❤️
The idea presented here of early Islam as a kind of monotheistic revival movement rather than a distinct religion, more or less aligns with Oswald Spengler's take on Islam in his work The Decline of The West, where he sees the emergence of Islam as a kind of zealous reformation movement within what he calls the "Magian civilization", in which Muhammed represents the same kind of character as a Martin Luther or an Oliver Cromwell. On a completely different note, Jason Reza Jorjani has a fascinating, albeit highly speculative take on the origin story of Islam, in which Salman the Persian plays an instrumental role. In short, Jorjani views the creation of Islam as an intelligence operation in order to create a mercenary army with which to overthrow the Sassanid Empire on behalf of the old Parthian royal houses. The army of angels that allegedly helped the muslims defeat the Persians according to Islamic mythology, was really an army of Parthian green clad knights, according to Jorjani.
As expected, a fantastic discussion. I do have one minor quibble with the idea that the Umayyads saw Christians as kindred believers. When Umayyad coinage was reformed by ‘Abd al-Malik around 696 AH, the Qur’anic verse chosen for inclusion was 9:33 which says “It is He who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth to glorify it over all other religions, though those who associate others with Allah may dislike it.” It’s hard to think that this was directed at anyone other than the Christians who ruled the Byzantine Empire. By then, other “mushrikūn” were largely irrelevant and the Zoroastrians were not a political force. It seems that by that point at least, Christians had been thoroughly otherized in official Islam.
I think the general argument is that it was Abd al-Malik himself that created (very purposefully) the framework for Islam as we know it today. The Qu-ran is solidified, mosques are built, doctrine is established etc. such that Islam becomes a very distinct religion, and there is now a line between being a Muslim or being a Christian/Jew. And Al-Malik does so in an environment where the Caliphate is now firmly established as the greatest power in the region. This is in contrast to the previous decades during the rapid expansions into Byzantine and Sassanids lands where the power of the Caliphate is more precarious. The Byzantines in particular are counter attacking in places like Alexandria, and there would be a major problem if the huge Christian populations in the Caliphate rose up in revolt over religion. The thesis is that during this pre-Umayyad period, Islam was more of a religious revival movement which Jews and Christians were open to participate in.
@@Sphere723the Quran says Jesus is not the son of God. How could Christians have been a part of the movement? Or, rather, how could the boundaries of Islam have been blurred so much that Christians could be among the believers, given this fundamental difference?
@@jgoogle4256 You're missing my point. The idea is that the Koran as we know it today was formed by scholars under the direction of Al-Malik at the end of the 7th Century (an idea which has some historical evidence.) and that before this time the religious movement might have had a distinctly different tone. There might not have been a fundamental doctrinal problem with a Christian participating in the movement. That's the thesis, and it would explain a lot about what happened in these years.
@@Sphere723 sure, I can see that. Although I thought they discovered early manuscripts dating to Muhammad’s time. I thought the mainstream view is that the Quran really was completed in Muhammad’s lifetime.
@@jgoogle4256 I don't know the details of Quranic manuscripts. I know there's an oddity in the Byzantine sources (which are lean for period during the first invasions) that they don't recognize the Arabs as having a new religion.
Also "DIn" does not mean religion in the Qoran. Din has the meaning "rights, law, judgement, values". The word religion in the qoran is word millet ... so the jews and christians are different milets from Ibrahims millet, decause they didnt foundet their "din" - Laws (hukum) on what was the revalation.
@@donquixote3927 We have no indication of where they died, or where (or even if) they were buried. Bones don’t last forever most bones don’t last long at all. We can’t even locate the ashes of Julius Caesar. He died only a little over 2000 years ago, under very well documented circumstances, and they stored his ashes in a whole temple dedicated to him. Now there’s nothing left but the altar.
According to Donner both Christians and Jews could be part this new religious movement that arose on the Arabic peninsula or Palestine some time in the 7th century, and developed into a separate religion about 70- 100 years after Muhammed supposedly died. But how do these thoughts fit with how the Muslim traditions 2-300 years later described what happened?? Or were the traditions created afterwards, to fit an Islamic setting?
@@mostarac7297, Muhammad is mentioned in many contemporary non- Muslim sources, so most scientists agree that he existed. But sadly, the Muslim sources describing him are so late, 2-300 years afterwards, that it's hard to know what is true or not. There is hardly any archeological evidence from the time of Muhammad, that can back up the Muslim traditions. The first time his name is on public display, and also the first time his name is mentioned in a Muslim setting (except for 4 times in the Quran), is on a coin from Iran from 686 AD. Why isn't he mentioned more in early Muslim sources? Is he mostly a mythological figure, that later became an important person in a new religion??
@@hashamkhan9517Chains of narration prove nothing if the content is incorrect, or fictional. Honest people can support wrong ideas and beliefs, and be mistaken or, in some cases, exaggerate. That’s why the Science of Hadith is a spurious label which does not comport to the ways humans behave and communicate, or in some cases, to reality given the acceptance of supernatural tales and entities.
Hi David, I’m hoping you can make a video addressing some of the work of Dan Gibson. I have been fascinated by his theories regarding early Islam but it is hard to find any direct critic of his work by academics. Thanks!
Thanks for this…many non academics falsely use these historical theories in polemics and apologetics it is imperative for you to explain why that’s not an appropriate use! And where and why these theories and thought experiments(as Rob Hoyland said about Chrones theorie)… are not absolute facts.
I agree with you wholeheartedly but it used by everyone, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews and they've been doing it for so long now that I don't think it can be reversed
Let’s see what sura 49 says about Islam and faith. 49:14 The desert Arabs say, "We believe." Say, "Ye have no faith; but ye (only)say, 'We have submitted our wills to Allah,' For not yet has Faith entered your hearts. But if ye obey Allah and His Messenger, He will not belittle aught of your deeds: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." Aslama or submitted is a onetime deal similar to taking the Shahada. Iman or faith is a journey one takes during his or her lifetime. Faith or Iman grows and falters. So faith is an ongoing process unlike taking the shahada for instance. Here is the kicker when we look at verse 15. God defines who the believers are. 49:15 Only those are *Believers who have believed in Allah and His Messenger* and have never since doubted, but have striven with their belongings and their persons in the Cause of Allah: Such are the sincere ones. The believers are those “who have believed in Allah and His Messenger.” That is a direct quote. That excludes the Jews the Christians and anyone who doesn’t believe in God and his messenger prophet Muhammad. Case closed.
So if the Koran's definition of "believer" is that, then every Christian who believes in his own creed is such a "believer". Regardless of whether this one believes in the Koran or not.
The difference betwee Muslim and believer( اسلام and Iman ) is will reexplained using the Quran as the the only reference in a book written by Dr Mohammed shahrour “ الاسلام والايمان' Islam and faith, it is fasnating and convincing..it is the opposite detention of Muslims today…
On examining worship in Islam, it isn’t accurate to say that in Islam there is no liturgy as assessed by professor Donner. The difference is that there is partial liturgy in mandatory prayers where a prescribed set of worship units are performed with insertion of a choice reading of parts of the Quran, and full sectarian liturgy per Christian sect. Sunni sects do have the a further highly encouraged prescribed liturgy of the Taraweeh prayer after dusk, with structural variations in the different Sunni sects. Mainly it is a difference of full liturgies and and variant partial liturgies.
verse 9:29 “and those who believe not according to the true religion among those to whom the Book was given” this verse is not about all Christians and Jews but about the Christians and Jews who were not on the true path of the true religion (Islam). These are those of them who believed in the trinity who did not surrender to the monotheistic movement under the authority of prophet muhammad pboh and who did not obey the laws of the torah and gospel. If they did not submit then they had to pay the al-dijzyah (extra tax) and if they dont submit or pay the extra tax then fight them. It Has absolutely nothing to do with whether they knew the Qur'an, as the commander was the prophet himself who also explained the Qur'an to his movement.
@@ultrasignificantfootnote3378 Acc Donner yes. But a holistic reading of the Koran shows that believing in Muhammads prophecy and Koran being God's words is mandatory. Belief in God and the hereafter is just a summary of that. And those who disbelieve in Muhammad are not believers in God.
@@ultrasignificantfootnote3378 True. But there is the interesting case of those believe in Muhammad and the Quran but don't call themselves Muslims, e.g. Karaite Jews.
He is totally wrong in his views about who the ‘believers’ are. Almu’minun or believers is a noun and it refers to the believers in the prophet Muhammad and his message the Quran. The Jews and the Christians are not Mu’minum or believers’ in that sense if they don’t believe in the prophethood of Muhammad and the Quran. It is that simple. There is not one verse from the Quran where God adresses ya ayuha almu’minun or o you believers and he means by that people other than the followers of the prophet Muhammad. I dare the professor to produce just one verse. It is never about the Jews or Christians. Never. Verses 22:17 shows the difference: 22:15 Whoever thinks that Allah will not help His Prophet in this world and the Hereafter, let them stretch out a rope to the ceiling and strangle themselves, then let them see if this plan will do away with ˹the cause of˺ their rage. 22:16 And so We revealed this ˹Quran˺ as clear verses. And Allah certainly guides whoever He wills. 22:17 Indeed, the believers, Jews, Sabians, Christians, Magi, and the polytheists-Allah will judge between them ˹all˺ on Judgment Day. Surely Allah is a Witness over all things. We have six groups in verse 22:17: - The believers, those who believe in the prophethood of Muhammad. - The Jews. - The Sabians - The Christians - The Magi - The polytheists or the Mushrikun Those six groups of people are distinct and different. It is clear as day.
That‘s your opinion and fred donner and others, me included, think you are wrong. „You have six different groups“: i don‘t agree. The quran uses this style several time, even used the word „and“ even though the two connecting things are not exclusive (e.g. „Fruits AND dates“. Does the quran say dates are not fruits? I claim no. It‘s the linguistic style of the quran. 3:110: „…..among them [people of the book] are believers („mu‘minoona“). So i think you are wrong about this. The quran actually says there are people among the people of the book who are believers.
34:59. Tri-consonantal Semitic roots of Muslim is Shin Lamed Meem (Heb) - Sin Lam Meem (Arabic) - S-L-M, shared set of meanings in both languages - Shalam - Shalom - Islam - Salam - Salaman -Solomon- peace - submit for your debts to be forgiven. Mushlam in Hebrew. Muslim/Mushlam/Meshulam also means being whole/perfect. Jesus said to his disciples to be Mushlam(perfect). To be true to your nature, to your self and function accordingly. Muslim is anything that that has been created according to its nature and function. That was Moses' reply to the Pharoah in the Quran; God is he who created everything according to its nature and appropriate function. That is the meaning of Muslim. By the way, according to the Jewish Encyclopedia, Arabia is the home of the Semites, Semitic Languages and culture and the starting point of migration.
If they believe in “One God, the Last Judgment and they live righteously” AND if they accept Jesus as the Messiah AND reject Jesus as God. That is what makes the believers the “in between” nation -between the Jews and Christians The early Islam is not just an apocalyptic movement- it is the Messianic movement as well. Can an apocalyptic movement NOT be a messianic movement by default ?
@memories2019ss no, ha-garean. That means Jewish sympathizers who were allowed to sacrifice and to hagg/ hajj alongside the Jews. The mythical story of the “polytheists not allowing the believers to perform hajj to Mecca” is an echo of the Christians not allowing the Jews or the Jew sympathizers to perform pilgrimage to Jerusalem. After the “Mecca” was “retaken” - the “deen” was complete. Also, I don’t necessarily think the original believers come from around Jerusalem. Their “Mecca” of destination was Jerusalem, but they could have came from several origins . But - of course - the believer movement COULD include the Jews and the Christians - as long as the Jews accepted Jesus as the Messiah, and the Christians gave up the idea that Jesus is equal to God. Jesus is still perceived by the early believers as a divine person, but NOT God himself.
@@ibnsoolas-somalee3498 yes. And when something is “messianic” means focusing around the Messiah. Jesus. That needs to be looked into with sharper focus.
@@MBiernat0711 Go right ahead and knock yourself out, you won't find much difference from the traditional account though. That the Jews attempted to kill the very Messiah that was prophescized to them by all their prophets since the Torah. However God saved him, and will preserve him to return and fulfill those same messianic prophecies, but under a different people. This is because God cursed the Jews after this and replaced them with the other children of Abraham, the ishamelites, to now spread his message to the rest of humanity.
@@ibnsoolas-somalee3498 yes, I agree with you. The Quran is very antagonistic toward the Jews who rejected Jesus as the Messiah. Quran describes those people as those who “accepted first” (the message of Moses) and then rejected after believing (the Messiahship of Jesus). Also, the Quran does not really deny that Jesus’ body was crucified and died (and Jesus as the Spirit was taken to God) - but, rather - says that “it seemed to them that he was crucified.” This resembles docetic belief that Jesus’s body was a phantom. That is because in truth - Jesus was the Word and Spirit from God. And that can not die
1) Mu'min 'believers' refers to many things. Such as ebing one of the names of Allah and can be applied to Muslims. 2) Jews and Christains are not considered nor refered to as Mu'min beilvers. As adedemics you should know better, what makes someone a beilver? Not only is it indeed the first half of the shahada "I bear witness that there is no God but God" but also the second half 'and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.” 3) Jews and Christians dont regrad Muhammad as a messanger of Allah nor beilve him to be the last messanger of Allah, let alone follow the Sunnah. 4) Aside from the Shahada, in order to be a believer (muslim) one must have beilf in the 6 pillars of Faith, which jews and Christans also do not fully accept/believe in.
And where exactly do you find the shahada in the Quran? I can‘t find it and don‘t believe there is. It would also contradict that the quran calls abraham a „muslim“ (obviously the quran didn‘t exist back then nor mohammed). Muslim/islam simply means „submission to God“ in the Quran. Quran also likes to criticize being sectarian („abraham was neither jew nor christian“ (he was simply „devoted to God (muslim)“ and didn‘t belong to a sect or a confessiom)
WE SHOULD SAY MUSLIM OR BELIEVER, NOT MUSLIM! Allah has named believers as "Muslim". However, approximately 250-300 years after the Prophet Muhammad, the word "Muslim" was produced from the Persian word "MUSELMAN" with the introduction of Sufism to Islam and the influence of Iranian culture. But the Qur'an does not have the word "Muslim", it has the word "Muslim". According to the grammatical rules of the Qur'an, the word Muslim cannot be produced from the word Muslim.
Akhira or the hereafter is fundamental to the believers or follower of Muhammad and it did not exist for non believers, it is a novel and revolutionary concept in their time and in all times!
I dont understand why a clear statement must be reinterpreted in this way !! 1. The term din, as many others are defined by the context "Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day, nor comply with what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, nor embrace the religion of truth from among those who were given the Scripture, until they pay the tax, willingly submitting, fully humbled" The religion of truth (it cant be judgement or law here), is used in context of people of the book 2. Majority of christians today dont even prostrate in prayers and pray to jesus which is condemned, the verse of salvation of some of people of the book, doesnt apply to all christians and jews This is derived just by reading the text as it is I have no idea why these scholars want to twist what is very clear, maybe its just to say something new what nobody has said .... The fact that he had bad blood with Crone over an introduction is problematic, and shows not to just accept a new theory just because...
Whats your point? Muslims eat camel meat even when it is forbidden in the old testament and still they claim to be of the same tradition. Newer religion always makes claim of continuation o f an older one and uses older termonologies and narratives to justify and propagate their new doctrines.
@@misterprogressive8730 Did u hear what i just heard ?! 1. He is in agreement with Crone that if muslims say x we should say y, without good evidence or try finding evidence for it , and we know what Crone produced with that thinking - as if Quran was written centuries later then proved bull 2. He argues as if the word muslim and islam didnt mean what meant by the time of ...lets say Malik ibn Anas, 2 century Whos word should I take....Malik, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Abu Hanifa ..... or a 20th century proffesor from USA that will argue against a muslim belief just because muslims argue for it ?!?!?! 3. False analogy with the camel meat, What he says would be analogous to: the camel meat is not a camel meat but has many interpretations, and that jews werent aware of this interpretation but came to it later Hes disagreeing with a) clear text and its context b) unanimity of all muslim scholars from the begining as if he knows arabic, jursiprudence, aqida more than a Malik ibn Anas the guy who studied under students of companions of the prophet Even historically, whats the most probable Malik not hearing of this theory or a 20th century American Prof that goes againt even clear text of the quran ?! hehehe amazing the arrogance of these profs
It reminds me of christians trying to fit Jesus as god and messia in both testaments, or shia trying to explain the clear reality by conspiracy theories (ali hated abu bakr and omar but named his sons abu bakr and omar because its common with arabs hehe)
@@hans471 Heh Considering what ur scholars logic is .. Even with clear text in the quran where god calls these believers muslims etc. saying it doesn mean that but a conspiracy theory no one heard up until 20 th century yeah I would be startled if u even consider something as a prophecy
@@mmss3199 according to Bart ehrman the new testament is more reliable than the Quran. In fact, he wouldn't consider the Quran to be a reliable source at all 😄
The origin of islam : هو ابوكم سماكم المسلمين من قبل وفي هذا ليكون الرسول شهيدا عليكم وتكونوا شهاء على الناس المؤمنون ليست ترجمته believers but rather those who are in a state of security,
Islam means the religion that came with all profhets all with same message namely “monotheism, believe in one god” the people who submits on this message are “muslims” (followers of mohammed pbon, jews and unitarisme christians.
“Today I have completed your Deen for you”, in the context of the military victory of the surah - can be understood as the completing the accomplishment of reclaiming Mecca by Muhammad OR taking Jerusalem by Omar, if one presumes “Mecca” signify Jerusalem and “Muhammad” being largely based on Omar (and/or some other leaders and teachers of early Islam). Thus - Jerusalem is taken back to the believers from the Christians, the hajj can start again, the sacrifice can be made --and now - the Messiah can come and the Last Judgment will follow. THAT is what “today I completed your deen” means. Of course the Messiah did not come and the Last Judgment never happened so after a couple of generations the ideology was re-thought and significantly modified into what we know, eventually - as the “religion of Islam”.
That must be one of the worst line of arguments I've ever heard online and God knows I heard many! If my grandmother was born in England in the Royal Family and her father was king then today I would have been the heir to the British Crown!
@@zeustn9525 it is just we don’t have the habit to read the Quran in the context of messianism. If you notice - in the Quran there are as two main prophetic characters. The first is a spiritual “Muhammad” who is the Light of God. This idea of a Jesus - like spiritual messiah (named Muhammad) is pre Islamic and comes from the South Arabian peninsula (together with the cult of Al Rahman). The second is the earthly Rasul - who is not named in the Quran, but is sent ON BEHALF of the heavenly Rasul - in order to support and, even, glorify the heavenly Rasul. This all sounds very strange to people who never took on this idea of “two rasuls of the Quran”.- I think I am the first one but there may be some others I’m not assure of. When you start reading the Quran in this context - it will make LOT more sense. It won’t appear as jumpy and disjointed anymore because you will know who speaks to whom.
The Qur'an does not deny the divinity of Jesus if you read it carefully. The error people are making is not understanding the argument which goes back to the 3rd and 4th ecumenical councils. The 3rd Council specifically dealt with the Christology of Jesus which lead to a greater debate on the nature of Christ. The Assyrian Church of the East emphasised the Humanity of Christ whilst the Oriental Orthodox Church emphasised the Divinity of Christ. Both did not disagree with each other on principle but because of their egos they continued to keep on emphasising their points even after the 3rd council. So when you take that into the consideration the Tayye who was associated with the Assyrian Church of the East or whoever the Arabs who originally had this Qur'an where just emphasising the Humanity of Christ to the point that when people to day read it that they think its denying Christ divinity but it does not at all. Examples of Christ divinity is shown throughout the quran if read carefully and even the trinity is affirmed by the Qur'an. I just hope people will stop saying that the Qur'an is a different book and how it Denys the trinity, the death of Jesus, and the divinity of Jesus when it does not at all and affirms or confirms them😫
"Throughout the Qur'an"? Jesus is mentioned by name in 15 of the Qur'ans 114 surahs (admittedly, including some of the later/longer ones). Do you see any references to the divinity of Jesus in the surahs that don't mention him by name? It seems to me unlikely that the Qur'an author(s) would have omitted any reference to Jesus, or any NT figure, for what was likely the Qur'ans first 2/3 or 3/4 of its announcements, if JC was at that time seen as important.
@@paulellis5101 Are you replying to me or someone else because I can see two comments have been made under my post but only one I can see. And if you are talking to me I don't understand what you are trying to say because I didn't say Jesus wasn't mentioned through the Quran. My point was not only was his divinity never denied but also affirmed by the Quran
@@robmckay5421 the definition of a Muslim is one who submits himself to God. I can call a neanderthal a neanderthal even if the word didn't exist in that era.
![Emran El-Badawi [II]: Freedom of Expression and Qur'anic Studies](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vmUQXteKx-0/mqdefault.jpg)
![Emran El-Badawi [II]: Freedom of Expression and Qur'anic Studies](/img/tr.png)
This episode is my dream come true. Fred Donner is the first inspiration for me to stepping into historical-critical studies of early Islam. I'm glad you finally featured him in the channel.
ruclips.net/video/B_l4PB37URo/видео.html
U can watch this as quran is evolving
@@obaidulhaque7687 what does that even mean "Quran is evolving"?
Fantastic as always. What a treat to have Professor Donner!
hello professor Javad
Very thoughtful discussion
Thank you. A wonderful chance discovery of intelligent, intellectually rigorous and honest information and discussion!! Happy to like and subscribe!!
Wonderful discussion here.
Thank you so much. That was a fantastic interview with Prof Donner.
I did my own historical research before I saw This video...and I also came to the conclusion that we were called the believers and not Muslims..
I felt blessed after getting my own research confirmed with this video ❤️
هو سماكم مسلمين
Thankyou.
Lots of research and wisdom being shared.
23:20 ecumenical movement
34:54 mu'min / muslim
39:35 meaning din
41:02 islam
1:08:20 western historian and islamic sources
The idea presented here of early Islam as a kind of monotheistic revival movement rather than a distinct religion, more or less aligns with Oswald Spengler's take on Islam in his work The Decline of The West, where he sees the emergence of Islam as a kind of zealous reformation movement within what he calls the "Magian civilization", in which Muhammed represents the same kind of character as a Martin Luther or an Oliver Cromwell.
On a completely different note, Jason Reza Jorjani has a fascinating, albeit highly speculative take on the origin story of Islam, in which Salman the Persian plays an instrumental role. In short, Jorjani views the creation of Islam as an intelligence operation in order to create a mercenary army with which to overthrow the Sassanid Empire on behalf of the old Parthian royal houses. The army of angels that allegedly helped the muslims defeat the Persians according to Islamic mythology, was really an army of Parthian green clad knights, according to Jorjani.
As expected, a fantastic discussion. I do have one minor quibble with the idea that the Umayyads saw Christians as kindred believers. When Umayyad coinage was reformed by ‘Abd al-Malik around 696 AH, the Qur’anic verse chosen for inclusion was 9:33 which says “It is He who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth to glorify it over all other religions, though those who associate others with Allah may dislike it.” It’s hard to think that this was directed at anyone other than the Christians who ruled the Byzantine Empire. By then, other “mushrikūn” were largely irrelevant and the Zoroastrians were not a political force. It seems that by that point at least, Christians had been thoroughly otherized in official Islam.
I think the general argument is that it was Abd al-Malik himself that created (very purposefully) the framework for Islam as we know it today. The Qu-ran is solidified, mosques are built, doctrine is established etc. such that Islam becomes a very distinct religion, and there is now a line between being a Muslim or being a Christian/Jew. And Al-Malik does so in an environment where the Caliphate is now firmly established as the greatest power in the region.
This is in contrast to the previous decades during the rapid expansions into Byzantine and Sassanids lands where the power of the Caliphate is more precarious. The Byzantines in particular are counter attacking in places like Alexandria, and there would be a major problem if the huge Christian populations in the Caliphate rose up in revolt over religion. The thesis is that during this pre-Umayyad period, Islam was more of a religious revival movement which Jews and Christians were open to participate in.
@@Sphere723the Quran says Jesus is not the son of God. How could Christians have been a part of the movement? Or, rather, how could the boundaries of Islam have been blurred so much that Christians could be among the believers, given this fundamental difference?
@@jgoogle4256 You're missing my point. The idea is that the Koran as we know it today was formed by scholars under the direction of Al-Malik at the end of the 7th Century (an idea which has some historical evidence.) and that before this time the religious movement might have had a distinctly different tone. There might not have been a fundamental doctrinal problem with a Christian participating in the movement.
That's the thesis, and it would explain a lot about what happened in these years.
@@Sphere723 sure, I can see that. Although I thought they discovered early manuscripts dating to Muhammad’s time. I thought the mainstream view is that the Quran really was completed in Muhammad’s lifetime.
@@jgoogle4256 I don't know the details of Quranic manuscripts. I know there's an oddity in the Byzantine sources (which are lean for period during the first invasions) that they don't recognize the Arabs as having a new religion.
The GOAT himself
No blue hair today LOL ... I'm quite enthused by his work approaching from the papyri direction
👏🙂
Very interesting.
Quite interesting.
Also "DIn" does not mean religion in the Qoran. Din has the meaning "rights, law, judgement, values". The word religion in the qoran is word millet ... so the jews and christians are different milets from Ibrahims millet, decause they didnt foundet their "din" - Laws (hukum) on what was the revalation.
I started believing that Muhammad was a title given to many people who were allowed to author Quran
Hahaha! That's a new one.
Keep dreaming...
Thank you Gabriel. I made a record for the fasted like of my life 😂
How can there be a prophet from a city with zero archaeological evidence for it?
Archaeological evidence of what
@@Iamfsaly what do you think?
@@Iamfsaly A skeleton Adam, 60 cubits tall.
@@donquixote3927 We have no indication of where they died, or where (or even if) they were buried. Bones don’t last forever most bones don’t last long at all.
We can’t even locate the ashes of Julius Caesar. He died only a little over 2000 years ago, under very well documented circumstances, and they stored his ashes in a whole temple dedicated to him. Now there’s nothing left but the altar.
@Iamfsaly Exemplary refutation*. Tell us then of the archaeological evidence for any settlement at Mecca before the 7th C.
*of my flippant comment
According to Donner both Christians and Jews could be part this new religious movement that arose on the Arabic peninsula or Palestine some time in the 7th century, and developed into a separate religion about 70- 100 years after Muhammed supposedly died. But how do these thoughts fit with how the Muslim traditions 2-300 years later described what happened?? Or were the traditions created afterwards, to fit an Islamic setting?
@@mostarac7297, Muhammad is mentioned in many contemporary non- Muslim sources, so most scientists agree that he existed. But sadly, the Muslim sources describing him are so late, 2-300 years afterwards, that it's hard to know what is true or not. There is hardly any archeological evidence from the time of Muhammad, that can back up the Muslim traditions. The first time his name is on public display, and also the first time his name is mentioned in a Muslim setting (except for 4 times in the Quran), is on a coin from Iran from 686 AD. Why isn't he mentioned more in early Muslim sources? Is he mostly a mythological figure, that later became an important person in a new religion??
@@asbjrnbergh7172 Muslims sources mention him with in 120 years after his death
and those sources go back to companions by chain of narration
@@hashamkhan9517Chains of narration prove nothing if the content is incorrect, or fictional. Honest people can support wrong ideas and beliefs, and be mistaken or, in some cases, exaggerate. That’s why the Science of Hadith is a spurious label which does not comport to the ways humans behave and communicate, or in some cases, to reality given the acceptance of supernatural tales and entities.
@@hashamkhan9517The chains of narration are notoriously unreliable.
There are litreal manuscript dated to within 100 of propeht death.
Hi David, I’m hoping you can make a video addressing some of the work of Dan Gibson. I have been fascinated by his theories regarding early Islam but it is hard to find any direct critic of his work by academics. Thanks!
Thanks for this…many non academics falsely use these historical theories in polemics and apologetics it is imperative for you to explain why that’s not an appropriate use! And where and why these theories and thought experiments(as Rob Hoyland said about Chrones theorie)… are not absolute facts.
I agree with you wholeheartedly but it used by everyone, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews and they've been doing it for so long now that I don't think it can be reversed
Let’s see what sura 49 says about Islam and faith.
49:14 The desert Arabs say, "We believe." Say, "Ye have no faith; but ye (only)say, 'We have submitted our wills to Allah,' For not yet has Faith entered your hearts. But if ye obey Allah and His Messenger, He will not belittle aught of your deeds: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."
Aslama or submitted is a onetime deal similar to taking the Shahada. Iman or faith is a journey one takes during his or her lifetime. Faith or Iman grows and falters. So faith is an ongoing process unlike taking the shahada for instance.
Here is the kicker when we look at verse 15. God defines who the believers are.
49:15 Only those are *Believers who have believed in Allah and His Messenger* and have never since doubted, but have striven with their belongings and their persons in the Cause of Allah: Such are the sincere ones.
The believers are those “who have believed in Allah and His Messenger.” That is a direct quote. That excludes the Jews the Christians and anyone who doesn’t believe in God and his messenger prophet Muhammad. Case closed.
So if the Koran's definition of "believer" is that, then every Christian who believes in his own creed is such a "believer". Regardless of whether this one believes in the Koran or not.
The difference betwee Muslim and believer( اسلام and Iman ) is will reexplained using the Quran as the the only reference in a book written by Dr Mohammed shahrour “ الاسلام والايمان' Islam and faith, it is fasnating and convincing..it is the opposite detention of Muslims today…
what did you say during inneddinel indallahel hanafiyye? what is it? can you explain below a bit please?
Salam bro, thid you find it because i also can't unterstand hem wich mushaf he said
Salam brothers they said in another narration word hanafyyah is instead word islam in ayyah: ان الدین عندالله الاسلام ان الدین عندالله الحنفیه
Wow
Dr Gabriel although I know that you won't answer this question. Bit plz be so kind as to tell us about the pagan egyptian roots of circumcision.
On examining worship in Islam, it isn’t accurate to say that in Islam there is no liturgy as assessed by professor Donner. The difference is that there is partial liturgy in mandatory prayers where a prescribed set of worship units are performed with insertion of a choice reading of parts of the Quran, and full sectarian liturgy per Christian sect. Sunni sects do have the a further highly encouraged prescribed liturgy of the Taraweeh prayer after dusk, with structural variations in the different Sunni sects. Mainly it is a difference of full liturgies and and variant partial liturgies.
verse 9:29 “and those who believe not according to the true religion among those to whom the Book was given” this verse is not about all Christians and Jews but about the Christians and Jews who were not on the true path of the true religion (Islam). These are those of them who believed in the trinity who did not surrender to the monotheistic movement under the authority of prophet muhammad pboh and who did not obey the laws of the torah and gospel. If they did not submit then they had to pay the al-dijzyah (extra tax) and if they dont submit or pay the extra tax then fight them. It Has absolutely nothing to do with whether they knew the Qur'an, as the commander was the prophet himself who also explained the Qur'an to his movement.
What is the definition of believers that Fred Donner uses. are Polytheists also believers ?
no, he refers to 5:69
@@akserayi Then are Jews,Sabians and Christians, as long as they believe in Allah and the last day also believers ?
@@ultrasignificantfootnote3378 Acc Donner yes. But a holistic reading of the Koran shows that believing in Muhammads prophecy and Koran being God's words is mandatory. Belief in God and the hereafter is just a summary of that. And those who disbelieve in Muhammad are not believers in God.
@@akserayi Then basicly ,when a Muslim says believer, he means Muslim.( Believer = Muslim ). Why make it more complicated than that.
@@ultrasignificantfootnote3378 True. But there is the interesting case of those believe in Muhammad and the Quran but don't call themselves Muslims, e.g. Karaite Jews.
SALAAM GABRIEL
He is totally wrong in his views about who the ‘believers’ are. Almu’minun or believers is a noun and it refers to the believers in the prophet Muhammad and his message the Quran. The Jews and the Christians are not Mu’minum or believers’ in that sense if they don’t believe in the prophethood of Muhammad and the Quran. It is that simple.
There is not one verse from the Quran where God adresses ya ayuha almu’minun or o you believers and he means by that people other than the followers of the prophet Muhammad. I dare the professor to produce just one verse. It is never about the Jews or Christians. Never.
Verses 22:17 shows the difference:
22:15 Whoever thinks that Allah will not help His Prophet in this world and the Hereafter, let them stretch out a rope to the ceiling and strangle themselves, then let them see if this plan will do away with ˹the cause of˺ their rage.
22:16 And so We revealed this ˹Quran˺ as clear verses. And Allah certainly guides whoever He wills.
22:17 Indeed, the believers, Jews, Sabians, Christians, Magi, and the polytheists-Allah will judge between them ˹all˺ on Judgment Day. Surely Allah is a Witness over all things.
We have six groups in verse 22:17:
- The believers, those who believe in the prophethood of Muhammad.
- The Jews.
- The Sabians
- The Christians
- The Magi
- The polytheists or the Mushrikun
Those six groups of people are distinct and different. It is clear as day.
That‘s your opinion and fred donner and others, me included, think you are wrong.
„You have six different groups“: i don‘t agree. The quran uses this style several time, even used the word „and“ even though the two connecting things are not exclusive (e.g. „Fruits AND dates“. Does the quran say dates are not fruits? I claim no. It‘s the linguistic style of the quran.
3:110: „…..among them [people of the book] are believers („mu‘minoona“).
So i think you are wrong about this. The quran actually says there are people among the people of the book who are believers.
34:59. Tri-consonantal Semitic roots of Muslim is Shin Lamed Meem (Heb) - Sin Lam Meem (Arabic) - S-L-M, shared set of meanings in both languages - Shalam - Shalom - Islam - Salam - Salaman -Solomon- peace - submit for your debts to be forgiven. Mushlam in Hebrew. Muslim/Mushlam/Meshulam also means being whole/perfect. Jesus said to his disciples to be Mushlam(perfect). To be true to your nature, to your self and function accordingly. Muslim is anything that that has been created according to its nature and function. That was Moses' reply to the Pharoah in the Quran; God is he who created everything according to its nature and appropriate function. That is the meaning of Muslim. By the way, according to the Jewish Encyclopedia, Arabia is the home of the Semites, Semitic Languages and culture and the starting point of migration.
❤
If they believe in “One God, the Last Judgment and they live righteously” AND if they accept Jesus as the Messiah AND reject Jesus as God. That is what makes the believers the “in between” nation -between the Jews and Christians
The early Islam is not just an apocalyptic movement- it is the Messianic movement as well.
Can an apocalyptic movement NOT be a messianic movement by default ?
@memories2019ss no, ha-garean. That means Jewish sympathizers who were allowed to sacrifice and to hagg/ hajj alongside the Jews. The mythical story of the “polytheists not allowing the believers to perform hajj to Mecca” is an echo of the Christians not allowing the Jews or the Jew sympathizers to perform pilgrimage to Jerusalem. After the “Mecca” was “retaken” - the “deen” was complete.
Also, I don’t necessarily think the original believers come from around Jerusalem. Their “Mecca” of destination was Jerusalem, but they could have came from several origins .
But - of course - the believer movement COULD include the Jews and the Christians - as long as the Jews accepted Jesus as the Messiah, and the Christians gave up the idea that Jesus is equal to God. Jesus is still perceived by the early believers as a divine person, but NOT God himself.
It is still apocalyptic and messaniac, and always will be until the final hour.
@@ibnsoolas-somalee3498 yes. And when something is “messianic” means focusing around the Messiah. Jesus. That needs to be looked into with sharper focus.
@@MBiernat0711 Go right ahead and knock yourself out, you won't find much difference from the traditional account though. That the Jews attempted to kill the very Messiah that was prophescized to them by all their prophets since the Torah. However God saved him, and will preserve him to return and fulfill those same messianic prophecies, but under a different people. This is because God cursed the Jews after this and replaced them with the other children of Abraham, the ishamelites, to now spread his message to the rest of humanity.
@@ibnsoolas-somalee3498 yes, I agree with you. The Quran is very antagonistic toward the Jews who rejected Jesus as the Messiah. Quran describes those people as those who “accepted first” (the message of Moses) and then rejected after believing (the Messiahship of Jesus).
Also, the Quran does not really deny that Jesus’ body was crucified and died (and Jesus as the Spirit was taken to God) - but, rather - says that “it seemed to them that he was crucified.” This resembles docetic belief that Jesus’s body was a phantom. That is because in truth - Jesus was the Word and Spirit from God. And that can not die
1) Mu'min 'believers' refers to many things. Such as ebing one of the names of Allah and can be applied to Muslims.
2) Jews and Christains are not considered nor refered to as Mu'min beilvers. As adedemics you should know better, what makes someone a beilver? Not only is it indeed the first half of the shahada "I bear witness that there is no God but God" but also the second half 'and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.”
3) Jews and Christians dont regrad Muhammad as a messanger of Allah nor beilve him to be the last messanger of Allah, let alone follow the Sunnah.
4) Aside from the Shahada, in order to be a believer (muslim) one must have beilf in the 6 pillars of Faith, which jews and Christans also do not fully accept/believe in.
2) 3:110 denies your claim: „among them [people of the book] are believer („mu‘minoona“)…..“
And where exactly do you find the shahada in the Quran? I can‘t find it and don‘t believe there is. It would also contradict that the quran calls abraham a „muslim“ (obviously the quran didn‘t exist back then nor mohammed). Muslim/islam simply means „submission to God“ in the Quran. Quran also likes to criticize being sectarian („abraham was neither jew nor christian“ (he was simply „devoted to God (muslim)“ and didn‘t belong to a sect or a confessiom)
Hidden Origins if Islam, Early Islam and Creating Quran show the Standard Islamic Narrative is false.
Are you one of those Jay Smith Wackos? Or do you mean this sincerely?
@@pebystroll I can bring you to the water but I can't make you drink. You should learn to read so you can read those books.
My apologies if I insulted you, I just see those Jay Smith morons spamming SIN all over the place, I didn't mean to lump you in with them
WE SHOULD SAY MUSLIM OR BELIEVER,
NOT MUSLIM!
Allah has named believers as "Muslim". However, approximately 250-300 years after the Prophet Muhammad, the word "Muslim" was produced from the Persian word "MUSELMAN" with the introduction of Sufism to Islam and the influence of Iranian culture. But the Qur'an does not have the word "Muslim", it has the word "Muslim". According to the grammatical rules of the Qur'an, the word Muslim cannot be produced from the word Muslim.
That really makes no sense……
Akhira or the hereafter is fundamental to the believers or follower of Muhammad and it did not exist for non believers, it is a novel and revolutionary concept in their time and in all times!
I dont understand why a clear statement must be reinterpreted in this way !!
1. The term din, as many others are defined by the context
"Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day, nor comply with what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, nor embrace the religion of truth from among those who were given the Scripture, until they pay the tax, willingly submitting, fully humbled"
The religion of truth (it cant be judgement or law here), is used in context of people of the book
2. Majority of christians today dont even prostrate in prayers and pray to jesus which is condemned, the verse of salvation of some of people of the book, doesnt apply to all christians and jews
This is derived just by reading the text as it is
I have no idea why these scholars want to twist what is very clear, maybe its just to say something new what nobody has said ....
The fact that he had bad blood with Crone over an introduction is problematic, and shows not to just accept a new theory just because...
Whats your point? Muslims eat camel meat even when it is forbidden in the old testament and still they claim to be of the same tradition. Newer religion always makes claim of continuation o f an older one and uses older termonologies and narratives to justify and propagate their new doctrines.
@@misterprogressive8730
Did u hear what i just heard ?!
1. He is in agreement with Crone that if muslims say x we should say y, without good evidence or try finding evidence for it , and we know what Crone produced with that thinking - as if Quran was written centuries later then proved bull
2. He argues as if the word muslim and islam didnt mean what meant by the time of ...lets say Malik ibn Anas, 2 century
Whos word should I take....Malik, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Abu Hanifa ..... or a 20th century proffesor from USA that will argue against a muslim belief just because muslims argue for it ?!?!?!
3. False analogy with the camel meat,
What he says would be analogous to: the camel meat is not a camel meat but has many interpretations, and that jews werent aware of this interpretation but came to it later
Hes disagreeing with
a) clear text and its context
b) unanimity of all muslim scholars from the begining
as if he knows arabic, jursiprudence, aqida more than a Malik ibn Anas the guy who studied under students of companions of the prophet
Even historically, whats the most probable Malik not hearing of this theory or a 20th century American Prof that goes againt even clear text of the quran ?!
hehehe
amazing the arrogance of these profs
It reminds me of christians trying to fit Jesus as god and messia in both testaments,
or shia trying to explain the clear reality by conspiracy theories (ali hated abu bakr and omar but named his sons abu bakr and omar because its common with arabs hehe)
well, surely Mohmed is not prophesied in the bible, neither old nor new testament 🙄
@@hans471
Heh
Considering what ur scholars logic is ..
Even with clear text in the quran where god calls these believers muslims etc.
saying it doesn mean that but a conspiracy theory no one heard up until 20 th century
yeah
I would be startled if u even consider something as a prophecy
@@mmss3199 according to Bart ehrman the new testament is more reliable than the Quran. In fact, he wouldn't consider the Quran to be a reliable source at all 😄
@@mmss3199 the Quran claims that Mohamed is proph side in the bible but he is not. Not so difficult 🙄
@@hans471 according to Barat but not Islamic schoolar. One fake Hadith much more credible than entire biblos written by unknown dudes.
هو سماكم المسلمين
Translate this
He called you Muslims
Mind you.. Bible should also be EQUALLY explored .. as well early christianity; how it diverted from the original
It has been and still is
Quran is the greatest legacy, covenant and charter humanity has possesses from Allah(God) Almighty.
The origin of islam : هو ابوكم سماكم المسلمين من قبل وفي هذا ليكون الرسول شهيدا عليكم وتكونوا شهاء على الناس
المؤمنون ليست ترجمته believers but rather those who are in a state of security,
Islam means the religion that came with all profhets all with same message namely “monotheism, believe in one god” the people who submits on this message are “muslims” (followers of mohammed pbon, jews and unitarisme christians.
“Today I have completed your Deen for you”, in the context of the military victory of the surah - can be understood as the completing the accomplishment of reclaiming Mecca by Muhammad OR taking Jerusalem by Omar, if one presumes “Mecca” signify Jerusalem and “Muhammad” being largely based on Omar (and/or some other leaders and teachers of early Islam).
Thus - Jerusalem is taken back to the believers from the Christians, the hajj can start again, the sacrifice can be made --and now - the Messiah can come and the Last Judgment will follow. THAT is what “today I completed your deen” means.
Of course the Messiah did not come and the Last Judgment never happened so after a couple of generations the ideology was re-thought and significantly modified into what we know, eventually - as the “religion of Islam”.
Your view/outcome on Islam is simply full of error ( a.k.a garbage)
That must be one of the worst line of arguments I've ever heard online and God knows I heard many! If my grandmother was born in England in the Royal Family and her father was king then today I would have been the heir to the British Crown!
@@zeustn9525 it is just we don’t have the habit to read the Quran in the context of messianism. If you notice - in the Quran there are as two main prophetic characters. The first is a spiritual “Muhammad” who is the Light of God. This idea of a Jesus - like spiritual messiah (named Muhammad) is pre Islamic and comes from the South Arabian peninsula (together with the cult of Al Rahman).
The second is the earthly Rasul - who is not named in the Quran, but is sent ON BEHALF of the heavenly Rasul - in order to support and, even, glorify the heavenly Rasul.
This all sounds very strange to people who never took on this idea of “two rasuls of the Quran”.- I think I am the first one but there may be some others I’m not assure of.
When you start reading the Quran in this context - it will make LOT more sense. It won’t appear as jumpy and disjointed anymore because you will know who speaks to whom.
Thanks for the laugh 😂😂😂
@@ibnsoolas-somalee3498 you’re welcome :)
The Qur'an does not deny the divinity of Jesus if you read it carefully. The error people are making is not understanding the argument which goes back to the 3rd and 4th ecumenical councils. The 3rd Council specifically dealt with the Christology of Jesus which lead to a greater debate on the nature of Christ. The Assyrian Church of the East emphasised the Humanity of Christ whilst the Oriental Orthodox Church emphasised the Divinity of Christ. Both did not disagree with each other on principle but because of their egos they continued to keep on emphasising their points even after the 3rd council. So when you take that into the consideration the Tayye who was associated with the Assyrian Church of the East or whoever the Arabs who originally had this Qur'an where just emphasising the Humanity of Christ to the point that when people to day read it that they think its denying Christ divinity but it does not at all. Examples of Christ divinity is shown throughout the quran if read carefully and even the trinity is affirmed by the Qur'an. I just hope people will stop saying that the Qur'an is a different book and how it Denys the trinity, the death of Jesus, and the divinity of Jesus when it does not at all and affirms or confirms them😫
Nah it pretty clearly does, also clearly states anyhone who takes anything as a deity besides Allah is a mushrik.
"Throughout the Qur'an"?
Jesus is mentioned by name in 15 of the Qur'ans 114 surahs (admittedly, including some of the later/longer ones). Do you see any references to the divinity of Jesus in the surahs that don't mention him by name?
It seems to me unlikely that the Qur'an author(s) would have omitted any reference to Jesus, or any NT figure, for what was likely the Qur'ans first 2/3 or 3/4 of its announcements, if JC was at that time seen as important.
@@paulellis5101 Are you replying to me or someone else because I can see two comments have been made under my post but only one I can see. And if you are talking to me I don't understand what you are trying to say because I didn't say Jesus wasn't mentioned through the Quran. My point was not only was his divinity never denied but also affirmed by the Quran
Quran clearly rejects worshipping Jesus and deifying him.
Interesting, where is the trinity affirmed?
That's what they call "مستشرق" 😀
All prophets were muslims.
muslims became a word invented in 7th century AD
@@robmckay5421 the definition of a Muslim is one who submits himself to God. I can call a neanderthal a neanderthal even if the word didn't exist in that era.