Early Islam: A Critical Reconstruction Based on Contemporary Sources by Karl-Heinz Ohlig (PDF)

Description

This successor volume to The Hidden Origins of Islam (edited by Karl-Heinz Ohlig and Gerd-R. Puin) continues the pioneering research begun in the first volume into the earliest development of Islam. Using coins, commemorative building inscriptions, and a rigorous linguistic analysis of the Koran along with Persian and Christian literature from the seventh and eighth centuries–when Islam was in its formative stages–five expert contributors attempt a reconstruction of this critical time period. Despite the scholarly nature of their work, the implications of their discoveries are startling: • Islam originally emerged as a sect of Christianity. • Its central theological tenets were influenced by a pre-Nicean, Syrian Christianity. • Aramaic, the common language throughout the Near East for many centuries and the language of Syrian Christianity, significantly influenced the Arabic script and vocabulary used in the Koran. • Finally, it was not until the end of the eighth and ninth centuries that Islam formed as a separate religion, and the Koran underwent a period of historical development of at least 200 years. Controversial and highly intriguing, this critical historical analysis reveals the beginning of Islam in a completely new light.From the Hardcover edition.

User’s Reviews

Reviews from Amazon users which were colected at the time this book was published on the website:

⭐A VERY ERUDITE RESEARCH BUT ONLY FOR THOSE WHO ARE SPECIALISTS ON THE SUBJECT.

⭐Excellent all around.

⭐This bloated monster is more library than book, and only half of it is worth your time. That would be the back half. This dysjunction, I predict, is going to alienate readers coming across the book for the first time. I don’t know how my following review is going to help, exactly; but you should know what you’re getting into.The first essay is an attempt by Volker Popp, his second in this series, to rewrite the history of early Islam; by means of numismatics and an extremely selective reading of the primary sources. The next essay, by the editor Karl-Heinz Ohlig, buttresses Popp’s choice of material: to explain why some primary sources are truly primary and others might not be. Ohlig is here reacting to Hoyland and to Suermann, who were more sanguine on this question.At this point I have lost patience with Popp’s revisionist alternate-reality epic fantasies; as far as I am concerned, he lives in his universe, and I will carry on in mine. As for Ohlig’s decision to rule out texts as interpolated or fraudulent: much of this deals with their mentions of “Muhammad”, “Ali”, constructions on the Temple Mount (Ohlig always assumes they’re the Dome of the Rock), or “Mecca”; none of which he allows (John of Nikiu, Jacob of Edessa). I must flag here the entry on John bar Penkaye, dismissed in grossly cavalier fashion – as far as I know just because Bar Penkaye agrees with the standard accounts of the Zubayrid Fitna, which is also not allowed in Ohlig’s sight. I would agree with this, IN PART, if the apparent anachronisms were multiple and consistent, and if we knew the text was translated from an original (i.e. he is right to doubt John of Nikiu – everyone doubts John of Nikiu). For my part, if any given (Syriac) text refers to the Arabs as “Mhaggraye” (instead of “Muslim”), I am inclined to see the text as authentic – “even” if it otherwise agrees with Islamic tradition.So now I am on page 251, and I have contracted a headache. The next essay, also Ohlig’s, is a survey of the Qur’an’s use of “Muhammad” (and sometimes the Sira) and, incidentally, of Mecca, Madina, and the qibla. I might have improved upon this essay by noting that sura 48 is based on sura 33, then concentrating on sura 33’s links to the Sira, and finally circling back to sura 48. Nevo and Koren have already proved that sura 48 is based on Marwani-era coinage. With those two intrusions more firmly out of the way, the rest of the essay is more convincing, if redundant for those (like me) who are already skeptical of the Sira.Then follow some shorter essays, two new and one a translation of Goldziher. I groaned internally when the two new essays’ authors turned out to be Luxenberg and Popp again. Thankfully these three essays are modest in scope. What’s going on is that the Qur’an is suspect of being first put to paper (parchment anyway) by Arabic-speaking Syrians more used to Garshuni than to Arabic-Arabic. So when certain texts got passed to another copyist, the copyist was stuck with certain orthographical quirks that he couldn’t quite understand – because the copyist wasn’t a Syrian. These three essays further suspect that the copyists weren’t Arabs either, but more specifically Persians. This argument is, as limited to these topics, worthy of interest; to anyone seeking to interpret the suras and their development.Still, I was well on my way to dropping that 2/5 on this thing, by the time I got to Markus Gross’s book-length essay. Gross explains how to tell a written transmission from an oral, explains the nature of Arabic as a Semitic language, and demonstrates that the Qur’an is a written text. And this part is great. Much is forgiven.This, then, is how to read this book: Start with the last essay. So equipped, you will be able to appreciate the three shorter essays before it. Then put this book down and re-read Hoyland and, finally, read the first part of this one – with lead-shielded gloves and goggles.This pity of it all is that if the book had just done away with the first three essays: it would still have topped 250 pages, it would have made a real contribution in explaining the situation for the layman, and it would have been well-worth the price (in hardback) for all that. So frustrating to have all this extra dead weight on my shelf.

⭐Very pleased with book! Very scholarly

⭐No Problem

⭐The conclusions are somewhat correct, bu with a major flaw : history based upon traditional chronology !The Muslims as the Cathars do not know the two Testaments, they are only aware of a tradition regarding Abraham and Moses, and know of one gospel only : John.So the Koran is a text written by a follower of the christian johannite church. He is opposed to new things like the trinity, the Bible and rightfully says that he is the true christian.This happened when the Council of Trent reformed the church. Mahomet, the ottoman sultan, disagreed.

⭐Sorry folks, this is not an academic or scholarly book, this is propaganda. I can promise you that 99% of non muslim Islamic studies scholars would agree with that, this is misinformation.

⭐In dem vorliegenden Buch wird endlich wissenschaftlich erklärt, wie die Weltreligion des Islam entstanden ist. Die kritisch historische Herangehensweise macht dieses Buch einzigartig.

⭐

⭐Merci.

⭐frankly this was not the type of book I was expecting, and that should not be held against the author or the book, none the less i feel like I must share my opinion for those who are of a similar mind to myself.I expected an analysis of the history of Islam from a non religious or propaganda perspective, this book does offer this but it is a highly highly scholarly work, it is not an easy read at all. I found myself getting lost and frustrated because I couldn’t follow along.

Keywords

Free Download Early Islam: A Critical Reconstruction Based on Contemporary Sources in PDF format
Early Islam: A Critical Reconstruction Based on Contemporary Sources PDF Free Download
Download Early Islam: A Critical Reconstruction Based on Contemporary Sources 2035 PDF Free
Early Islam: A Critical Reconstruction Based on Contemporary Sources 2035 PDF Free Download
Download Early Islam: A Critical Reconstruction Based on Contemporary Sources PDF
Free Download Ebook Early Islam: A Critical Reconstruction Based on Contemporary Sources