What were the origins of Islam...

The ERE between the 5th and 7th centuries suffered crippling demographic collapse, followed by hardening religious attitudes between the Imperial Church and everyone else. At the same time, Christianity and Judaism had been growing in the Arabian peninsula as Arab tribes traveled back and forth into the empire as merchants and mercenaries, eventually converting the population to a form of Judaic-Christianity with some lingering pagan traditions. However, after a while the major kings of inner and southern Arabia were crushed by Roman and Persian invasions while the rest became feuding, petty rulers who caused Hedjazi society to break apart.

Into this situation came Muhammad. Whatever his origins, whether in Mecca or in Northern Arabia, he was poised to earn the respect of Arabia which had become suspicious of any kind of arbiter like a king to settle their many disputes. With all the moral authority that came with proclaiming an Abrahamic religious revival in preparation for the coming judgment times, he united most of the Hedjaz into a series of non-aggression pacts while his followers established courts to settle longstanding feuds.

He soon died however, and in the chaos that followed a man named Abu Bakr claiming his own moral authority as a step-father to Muhammad forcibly united the tribes into a confederacy. While he was busy securing more power than Muhammad ever had, one of these tribes on the Sassanid border started raiding Iraq, and after presenting Abu Bakr with lucrative spoils the newly christened Commander of the Faithful started expanding his authority over these raids, claiming a part of the spoils and the right to distribute them to any tribal soldier that placed himself on stipend. Eventually the success of these raids inspired others to invade Syria, which Abu Bakr tried to control with his own appointments. And then followed Egypt, which he also attempted to control with less success.

Too add to this user, the Arab's managed to maintain relatively stable hold on conquered lands due to the Jizya being far less than what the ERE or the Sassinids expected in terms of taxes. It also helped that they were more aloof to the presence of the sects that the Imperial Church deemed heretical like the Coptic and Gnostic Christians.

But soon Abu Bakr was dead, and his successor Umar, after fending off a Sassanid attack that crushed the shah's authority, started sending out the newly organized supertribes Abu Bakr's military reorganization had created to occupy Persia. In the meanwhile the tribes in Egypt and Syria tried to raid further into Byzantine territory with some success, after which Umar died and thus started some political troubles as the growing powercenters of Arab tribes fought for the succession. The winners, the Umayyads, eventually tried to consolidate their gains with Byzantine Imperial aspirations, but this did not go over well with the growing religious class that had been growing in the colony garrisons in Syria and Iraq. There, with a mix of convert slave descendants and mixed Arab-Persian bureaucrats, this class took to consolidating the various stories spread by word of mouth about Muhammad, though by this time much had been mixed with other legends, political propaganda, and exaggerations. At the same time the Umayyads crushed a rebellion in Medina which claimed to have true moral authority because of the construction of a sacred site, and the Umayyads either took this site or promoted the one in Mecca to take this authority for their own, while also compiling the texts that would be the Quran as they began moving their definition of 'Right Guidance' from previous Commanders of the Faithful to Muhammad himself.

While the Syrian and Iraqi religious intelligentsia argued what it meant to be righteous, the political outcasts from the Umayyad's ascension spread beyond their reach in further conquests and settlement in Transoxiana and the Maghreb, spreading a syncretic form of Muhammad's message to the local Berbers and Persians. And others who cared little about these debates went on to settle as aristocratic landowners who married into the local nobility or moved to the frontier to live as ascetic warrior-monks, testing their faith with a harsh life and the dangers of raiding.

Eventually the Iraqi clerics won, and converted the last few Umayyads to their side. This led to a flourishing of their urban culture, and in the debates to follow they started collecting religious anecdotes and practices from across the now Muslim world. The landowning aristocrats brought with them old Roman and Persian patriarchy and legalism, the frontier raiders brought their warrior asceticism and freebooting lifestyle, and the Umayyad court brought their Byzantine Imperial aspirations.

What was left out, the disparate cultures on the distant borders of Umayyad strongholds, also consolidated into what would become Shi'a Islam, and eventually they and their allies would overthrow the Umayyads. By this point however Courtly Islam, which became Sunni Islam, had strong roots because of how big-tent its politics were.

The Jizya was a concept that came later as Muslim identity was developed. Before then the Arabs only demanded simple tribute, and were satisfied with little due to the small size of their bureaucracy and army payroll. But you're right that they did care less about the inner politics of local Christians, which allowed them to sit comfortably in between without one or more sides choosing to unite against them.

Archangel Gabriel kept telling Prophet Muhammad, the name is YHWH Allah, the name is YHWH Allah. But since God's first name YHWH is unpronounceable and God's last name Allah is, only God's last name was ever recited by Prophet Muhammad. Which is the reason God's full name, first and last name, YHWH Allah, is not recited in The Recitation today. What a shame that all Muslims only call God by last name. Apparently they do not know God well enough to be on a first name basis, or even on a more formal full name basis. Scholars, YHWH Allah should be in the written form of The Recitation, yes, Holy Qur'an.

>The Jizya was a concept that came later as Muslim identity was developed.
Tthe jizya is a concept that dates back to Muhammad himself.

Anything and everything as a concept is dated back to Muhammad in Islamic jurisprudence. That was how anecdotes were inflated to be more authoritative than they would have been otherwise. Jizya as we know it however developed later, a tax bracket that was given a Quranic term to justify one form of taxation (and de-legitimize others .

>Anything and everything as a concept is dated back to Muhammad in Islamic jurisprudence.
Ok so it didn't come later.

>Jizya as we know it
What ?
In what way did it differ from the time of Muhammad ?
I'm talking about proper fiqh not transgressions by some of the Umayyad caliphs like still making non-arabs pay jizya.

That's awesome :-D

Being dated back by jurisprudence is not the same thing as actually originating from that time. It's an attribution from a later era backwards in time in the way we might attribute some anonymous quote today to a famous politician or philosopher decades ago without proof beyond hearsay that he was the originator.

Jizya (small 'j' jizya) in Muhammad's time was charged on other Arab tribes - even those who accepted his proposal of a judge-arbiter into their tribe. It was a political guarantee of loyalty to Muhammad's growing supertribe based on faith and not blood. It was later a tribute of submission simply by nature of incorporating non-Arabs into an Arab tribe, and then a form of taxation in general given a religious mandate (although it continued to be applied to converts anyway for some time, and simply renamed when this became too controversial).

>without proof beyond hearsay that he was the originator.
It's just inaccurate to reduce oral tradition to this considering it was one of the main sources through which information was disseminated and when looking into the authentication process the evidences for it being more than "hearsay" are pretty stagnating.

youtube.com/watch?v=FPi5o2dvfiA

> in Muhammad's time was charged on other Arab tribes - even those who accepted his proposal of a judge-arbiter into their tribe. It was a political guarantee of loyalty to Muhammad's growing supertribe based on faith and not blood.

Accidentally sent the post too early but i'll pick it back up ;
>in Muhammad's time was charged on other Arab tribes - even those who accepted his proposal of a judge-arbiter into their tribe. It was a political guarantee of loyalty to Muhammad's growing supertribe based on faith and not blood.
That seems like a really long winded way of saying "tax on non-Muslims" which is how we understand jizya today and how it's understood in fiqh but i'm assuming you're going off the assumption that ahadeeth are nothing more than hearsay which is plain wrong.

As for the rest of it i'm pretty sure i specified talking about the proper fiqhi definition and not Umayyad transgressions.

The first and The last

LORD God
YHWH Allah

Name.

I thought that 'Allah' is a combination of the Arabic terms 'al' (the) and 'illah' (god)

It should be noted that Abu Bakr was one of the closest of Muhammed's company. The conquest he fought within the peninsula was actually a reconquest, the response to widespread apostacy and the emergance of multiple armies led by self-proclaimed prophets marching on Medina after Muhammed's death.

What other Prophets were there? Sounds interesting.

>considering it was one of the main sources through which information was disseminated and when looking into the authentication process the evidences for it being more than "hearsay" are pretty stagnating.
The authentication process for all its pomp and discipline is hearsay by definition. Neither does its uniqueness as a major source of current narratives. Jon Brown makes points to defend them, but he's arguing against far more numerous and well-researched opponents spanning decades, all making more convincing arguments that don't revolve around suspending normal rules of source criticism.

That's not my point. I said Muhammad applied standard norms of tribute without regard to religious consideration, and the status of Jizya as an institution directed against non-Muslims was more an accident.

>It should be noted that Abu Bakr was one of the closest of Muhammed's company. The conquest he fought within the peninsula was actually a reconquest, the response to widespread apostacy and the emergance of multiple armies led by self-proclaimed prophets marching on Medina after Muhammed's death.
That is the official narrative pieced together some decades later in Muslim sources, yes. But it's unlikely the whole or complete truth.

I'm just going to give Wikipedia links, because this isn't really my expertise - maybe someone else who knows about the origins of Islam can talk about more about the number and role of prophets in the 6th and 7th century Arabian peninsulas.

This guy claimed to be a prophet before Muhammad:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saf_ibn_Sayyad

And these people claimed to be prophets in opposition to Muhammad:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Aswad_Al-Ansi
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musaylimah
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sajah

Arabs peaked pretty early, they started getting mega btfo in the 9th century.
Turco-Persians reinvigorated Islam for another couple of hundred years, but by the Ottoman period, Europe was far beyond conquest. In fact, the reverse happened.

Oh, and how can I forget Mani (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mani_(prophet)) who also claimed to be the last prophet. Manichaeanism was probably around in the Arabian peninsula at that time as well.

>but he's arguing against far more numerous and well-researched opponents spanning decades, all making more convincing arguments that don't revolve
This assumes that the first one to defend ahadeeth was Jonathan Brown and whether an opposing views spans decades or not doesn't really mean anything by itself.
>all making more convincing arguments that don't revolve around suspending normal rules of source criticism.
I suggest actually looking into his arguments more because they tackle exactly that

>and the status of Jizya as an institution directed against non-Muslims was more an accident.
The fact that polytheists were not allowed to pay jizya at all just completely destroys that narrative you have no idea what you're talking about.

>This guy claimed to be a prophet before Muhammad
>was an alleged claimant of prophethood during the time of Islamic prophet Muhammad and his companions.

>And these people claimed to be prophets in opposition to Muhammad
Two of them claimed Prophethood after Muhammad's death, Musaylima said that Muhammad appointed him as the last Prophet and one of them claimed to be a prophet when Muhammad was on his death bed.

> arab jews and nestorians educated Mohammed.

also he had a Christian compagnion " waraqa ibn nawfal " this guy red pilled muhammad about christianism and Judaism and all the previous stories.

Dropping these 2 works on the very subject:
archive.org/details/Hagarism
yoel.info/moonotheismv1andv2.pdf

>The also chapter takes on Islamic and non-Islamic apologists for Islam who say that Islam is a Religion of Peace.™

Literally stopped reading there.
Not only can he not write proper sentences ("the also?"), he's also literally writing a work for a specific agenda in mind, which is not beneficial to anyone, except some kike reading that shit.

Why do people always post pictures of Ali