# Humanities & Anthropology > Philosophy >  Did the Umayyads invent the idea of Islam?

## Angela

See the following for an interesting take. Back track to the prior article as well.

https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2020/...idea-of-islam/

----------


## Ygorcs

Personally I think Islam was seen (perhaps even made to be) first as yet another unorthodox, "heretical" (from the perspective of Eastern Roman authorities) Christian sect. That might even explain why Middle Eastern Christians didn't resist the Arab conquest much. They were oppressed by "official" orthodox Roman Christianity, but in many places a majority of them followed unorthodox Christian beliefs and often felt very oppressed for their beliefs, and they would now only switch allegiance to a different kind of broadly the same faith. Thus Mohammedism must've been viewed as a sort of Arianism, not as a distinct religion, and while he was alive or soon after he died Muhammad would've been something like a great leader and teacher proposing a new interpretation of the scriptures and a new "Arabized" version that was mishmash of Christian and Jewish customs and beliefs with an Arabic spice. Muslims never want to think much about it, but why were hadiths and the Sunnah compiled and turned into a significant part of the Islamic doctrine only MANY generations after Muhammad died, I mean, centuries after he supposedly built Islam entirely as it is during his life? Strange. I think the role of Muhammad as a central figure distinguishing Islam from Christianity appeared gradually through many decades or even centuries after his death. He was at first something like Smith for Mormonism.

----------


## Palermo Trapani

> Personally I think Islam was seen (perhaps even made to be) first as yet another unorthodox, "heretical" (from the perspective of Eastern Roman authorities) Christian sect. That might even explain why Middle Eastern Christians didn't resist the Arab conquest much. They were oppressed by "official" orthodox Roman Christianity, but in many places a majority of them followed unorthodox Christian beliefs and often felt very oppressed for their beliefs, and they would now only switch allegiance to a different kind of broadly the same faith. Thus Mohammedism must've been viewed as a sort of Arianism, not as a distinct religion, and while he was alive or soon after he died Muhammad would've been something like a great leader and teacher proposing a new interpretation of the scriptures and a new "Arabized" version that was mishmash of Christian and Jewish customs and beliefs with an Arabic spice. Muslims never want to think much about it, but why were hadiths and the Sunnah compiled and turned into a significant part of the Islamic doctrine only MANY generations after Muhammad died, I mean, centuries after he supposedly built Islam entirely as it is during his life? Strange. I think the role of Muhammad as a central figure distinguishing Islam from Christianity appeared gradually through many decades or even centuries after his death. He was at first something like Smith for Mormonism.


Your post is I think accurate. There were many Eastern Christians in Persia and the Levant that held to the first 2 major Church Councils, Nicea 325 AD and Constantinople (381AD). The Nestorian theology was condemned at the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD, so large groups of Christians in those two regions were Nestorians. In 451 another Christological controversy, the Monophysite controversy, emerged in the Eastern part of the old Roman empire, and this was condemned at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 (the Famous Saint Peter has spoken through Pope Leo statement relates to Chalcedon). 

I do think scholars have linked Mohammed's early life to connections to some of the Nestorian Eastern Churches. Some of those may have chosen to live under Muslim rule and over time became Muslims. Over time those that didn't who lived in the Levant, once Islam conquered Syria/Lebanon etc were I think expelled to Iraq and Persia where they were allowed remain in their Church tradition. 

Today, in Catholic circles, since at least Pope John Paul II (RIP), the Catholic Church and The Assyrian Church of the East (who did not accept the Council of Ephesus terminology, i.e. held to Nestorians theology) signed a declaration accepting the to decrees of Chalcedon 451 AD, so it seems that at the doctrinal level, the Catholic Church and Assyrian Church of the East are no longer at odds, although not officially in "full communion" like the Rome and the Maronite Catholic Church (Lebanese Eastern Catholics) are and have always been. A branch of the old Assyrian Church of the East, the Chaldean Catholic Church is also in communion with Rome. Sine the Time of Pope John Paul II, the relations between the Chaldeans (in Catholic Communion) and Assyrians (who are not) has improved. I also think the Eastern Orthodox (Syrian) and the Assyrian Eastern Church have also lifted their mutual anathemas.

----------


## bigsnake49

I think the early theologians of the Christian faith were a bit too technical and tried to shoehorn too many esoteric and exotic beliefs in the religion. If they had not elevated the Son and the Holy Spirit to a co-equal standing then they would not have gotten involved in fighting all those heresies. The common folk do not understand the Filioque or the fuss the theologians made about it. They should have simplified it to easily understandable theological and behavioral concepts. One of the major peeves that I have as far as behavior is concerned is that you can be a major criminal all your life but if you confess your sins and ask for forgiveness on your death bed then all is well. Let's face it the system of incentive and disincentive of heaven and hell does not work really well if some scoundrel gets salvation at the last possible minute. If they actually said look you will be judged by putting up your good deeds against your sins with the weight decided by God that would be something understandable and fair. The other thing that common folk do not understand is this notion of primordial sin. Now if you want them to behave maybe tell them that the sins of the father have some effect on the son. It's something immediate and makes the descendant do better to make up for their ancestor sins. But this is going on a tangent soI will stop here.Muslim religion simplified a lot of the Christian beliefs and incorporated the local customs and beliefs.

----------

