Leaving aside insults, Ibn Warraq (quoting scholars) saw the clear juxtaposition (excerpts):Ozes wrote:How can people compare Joshua,Moses & Muhammed :
Do you need to be intellectually dishonest or have some scary tendencies of your own?
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/The_Origins_of_the_Qur'an" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
ALL the first non-Islamic accounts that we have attest of a partnership between messianic Jews and Saracens. THEM ALL...--The earliest Greek source speaks of Muhammad being alive in 634, two years after his death according to Muslim tradition.
Where the Muslim accounts talk of Muhammad’s break with the Jews, the Armenian version differs strikingly: The Armenian
chronicler of the 660s describes Muhammad as establishing a community which comprised both Ishmaelites (i.e., Arabs) and
Jews, with Abrahamic descent as their common platform; these allies then set off to conquer Palestine. The oldest Greek
source makes the sensational statement that the prophet who had appeared among the Saracens (i.e., Arabs) was proclaiming
the coming of the (Jewish) messiah, and speaks of the Jews who mix with the Saracens, and of the danger to life and limb of
falling into the hands of these Jews and Saracens.
--In the non-Muslim sources, it is Palestine which is the focus of his movement, and provides the religious motive for its conquest.
The Armenian chronicler further gives a rationale for this attachment: Muhammad told the Arabs that, as descendants of Abraham
through Ishmael, they too had a claim to the land which God had promised to Abraham and his seed. The religion of Abraham is in
fact as central in the Armenian account of Muhammad’s preaching as it is in the Muslim sources; but it is given a quite different
geographical twist. If the external sources are in any significant degree right on such points, it would follow that tradition is
seriously misleading on important aspects of the life of Muhammad.
--Cook points out the similarity of certain Muslim beliefs and practices to those of the Samaritans (). He also points out that the
fundamental idea developed by Muhammad of the religion of Abraham was already present in the Jewish apocryphal work called
the Book of Jubilees (dated to c. 140-100 B.C;), and which may well have influenced the formation of Islamic ideas. We also have
the evidence of Sozomenus, a Christian writer of the fifth century who "reconstructs a primitive Ishmaelite monotheism identical
with that possessed by the Hebrews up to the time of Moses; and he goes on to argue from present conditions that Ishmael’s laws
must have been corrupted by the passage of time and the influence of pagan neighbors."
--Sozomenus goes on to describe certain Arab tribes who, on learning of their Ishmaelite origins from Jews, adopted Jewish observances.
Again there may have been some influence on the Muslim community from this source. Cook also points out the similarity of the story of
Moses (exodus, etc.) and the Muslim hijra. In Jewish messianism, "the career of the messiah was seen as a re-enactment of that of
Moses; a key event in the drama was an exodus, or flight, from oppression into the desert, whence the messiah was to lead a holy war to
reconquer Palestine. Given the early evidence connecting Muhammad with Jews and Jewish messianism at the time when the conquest of
Palestine was initiated, it is natural to see in Jewish apocalyptic thought a point of departure for his political ideas."
--The evidence "of Judeo-Arab intimacy is complemented by indications of a marked hostility towards Christianity." An Armenian chronicle
written in the 660s also contradicts the traditional Muslim insistence that Mecca was the religious metropolis of the Arabs at the time of
the conquest; in contrast, it points out the Palestinian orientation of the movement. The same chronicle helps us understand how the
Prophet "provided a rationale for Arab involvement in the enactment of Judaic messianism. This rationale consists in a dual invocation of
the Abrahamic descent of the Arabs as Ishmaelites: on the one hand to endow them with a birthright to the Holy Land, and on the other to
provide them with a monotheist genealogy." Similarly, we can see the Muslim hijra not as an exodus from Mecca to Medina (for no early
source attests to the historicity of this event), but as an emigration of the Ishmaelites (Arabs) from Arabia to the Promised Land.
--The Samaritans held Moses in high regard, Moses being the prophet through whom the Law was revealed. For the Samaritans,
Mt. Gerizim was the rightful center for the worship of Yahweh; and it was further associated with Adam, Seth, and Noah, and
Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac. The expectation of a coming Messiah was also an article of faith; the name given to their Messiah
was the Restorer. Here we can also notice the similarity of the Muslim notion of the Mahdi.
We can tabulate the close parallels between the doctrines of the Samaritans and the Muslims in this way:
Under the influence of the Samaritans, the Arabs proceeded to cast Muhammad in the role of Moses as the leader of an exodus (hijra),
as the bearer of a new revelation (Koran) received on an appropriate (Arabian) sacred mountain, Mt. Hira.....
And this again frontally contradicts the Islamic tradition stating that Muhammad severed his ties with them by 624!
You can see this in the much later effort to put Ishmael, instead of Isaac, as the Koranic Son of the Promise...
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=8369" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Note: If you are to repeat the same abusive words than His Senility, I'll ignore you or reply equivalently...