Corrupted history of islam
-
salaam walaikum,
The establishment of the social system of islam, accomplished by Mohammed and those who accompanied him as per the guidance through the revelation of the quran is a historic accomplishment for humankind. Therein lies the model. What was to happen after, what really happened and what has been corrupted by ''criminal'' narrators of history is problematic. It has been suggested that historical referrences written in arabic which are not readily available do exist; whose contents deny corrupted stories. Do any of you know of this? How is it conceivable to view the progress of islam as the expansion of an empire through battles? What corrections in the ''history'' of islam are needed?
adjwi
-
Personally, I see the Umayyad dynasty as the morphed form of the Nabataean elite who were waiting for a second chance to level against the Christians/Romans for taking Petra... as such, it is possiblethat they infeltrated the muslim ranks and eventually used "Islam" to slingshot their way to victory (among other candidates such as copts, zionists etc).
In my opinion, most of this would have been done covertly so documentation would be sparse to begin with. As well, Arabic was spoken so the major effort must have been made in the prophet's lifetime to score and code the Quran (the script - not the content) properly instead of recording political events. It could hence explain the sort of void of extra Arabic documentation from that era (most of such events were written in Nabataean, which was used by the elite, and the Arab commoner was not used to doing things of the sort) until the Umayyads rose to power. There seem to have existed other non-standard scripts that were used to write down Arabic (some included diacritical dots as well) but it seems from the time of the Umayyads, the Kufic script took over and was used exclusively, which looks more or less like a morphed form of Nabataean itself.
I am attaching pictures, some of the nabataean constructs and one of the Grand Mosque of Damascus... notice the similarities in the architecture/approach...
As for history, let us consider an example. It is said that in the time of Umar bin Abdul Aziz, who had a short-lived rule of 3 years, banned the "cursing of Ali" after the Friday prayers among other drastic changes... who is this mysterious "Ali" and for what is he being cursed for?
As a sidewinder, let's look at the event of the Hijrah itself... why was there a need to leave behind Ali sleeping on the prophet's bed? It is said that Arabs of "Mecca" did not use lanterns and hence the kuffaar had to wait till dawn to storm the house to assassinate the prophet. As such, when they did break in, why would they not find an empty bed bewildering. Would seeing a child sleeping on the bed somehow be any more surprising than finding an empty bed? I can almost picture the conversation between two of the assilents scratching their heads "Duhh! Did you see thaet boehshh?" )
Did Ali exist or was it a title for someone? Was that person close to the prophet, or his relative or an idolized "someone" who wanted to stop the rise of the Nabataean elite... Are Hassan and Hussain his progeny, or his associates who carried the fight in his name, or are his morphed stories, or unrelated uprisings brought together as propaganda against the Umayyads?
So it is strange things like these that have to be looked at, and then some kind of a picture can emerge along with external documentation from the subjects of the "Islamic" empire of the time. It is a messed up collage with several mock pieces that fit well with other pieces to give a different vision that we are seeing... although they do fit, but not perfectly, so you are compelled to ask.
In my opinion, it will take several iterations of effort to get a decent "over all" picture... but for details I am afraid we may always be in the dark.