Their is no doubt that a warrior/prophet arose in the late 500's early 600's and preached a fierce mono-theism amongst the arabian tribes and launched them on a mission to conquer the lands
how come you are 100% sure of this whole sentence?
1. There is non doubt the prophet arose in the time period you stipulated?
2. What evidence do you have that he preached a "fierce" monotheism?
3. What evidence do you have that he "launched the arabs on a mission to conquer"?
What are the historical evidences? You are quoting several people. Don Holland doubts a lot of things about Muhammed, including his thesis that there were no coins with his name at the time. This is what you quoted. Then what is your evidence that you have no doubt about the three questions based on one single sentence of yours? Lets hear them.
Dan Gibson has shown that every Moslem prayer Niche was pointed at Petra until the time of Abdul Maliks Caliphate
You seem to have taken Dan Gibsons ideas wholeheartedly. This is why I asked if you have researched this. His thesis does not prove what he believes at all. He loves Petra and wants everything to point towards it. Wrong.
first you must analyse why Dan doubts early Islamic writings claiming that they are not so early when he pleases and then quotes Atthabari, Masoodhi? Dan has easily approached this thesis with the presupposition that the Kibla follows the Black Stone, which is one of the reasons you yourself have quoted this Roman ancestry of the stone. Very big mistake brother. Dan Gibson is mistaken, in error, though he himself quotes early Islamic writings (contrary his own thesis they cant be trusted) erroneously. He has misunderstood the Maghriba asshamshi to be the stone. It is one of the most unsophisticated mistakes one could make. He should have asked a simple arabic reader. Maghriba Asshamsi means "Setting place of the sun", not the stone. And it is very evident that the early Muslims whoever they are could not calculate the directions exactly and he makes one Kibla which is around 8to 9% away from the Kibla to be pointing towards Petra, which has been refuted simply because Dan made mistakes in his trigonometry. You should follow through. He erred with his understanding of Mathliasshamshi which in arabic means the rising place of the sun. His scholarship is not upto. the mark. Which is why I told you not to put these people along with Professor Crone, though she is a historian she has scholarship, not like Holland and Dan who are both amateurish in the field. Also, this is completely irrelevant to this topic, and your attempt to discredit Muhammed for whatever reason.
Your whole reliance on the "Not Mecca" theory is not valid to this discussion. And you should also study those who made mathematical advancements in the early societies and later corrected their directions to Mecca, that is just for your scholarship, not for the sake of this argument. You should know that some Muslims around the world, even in Europe, Asia, America etc are using the same old folk astronomy of the 7th century to determine the Kibla. And they differ even now. But their core belief is that "Waillahil mashriku wal maghribu". Study the subject deeper, not to the level of Dan Gibson because he is not very well versed.
If the foundational story of Islam is actually totally different than the accepted tradition does that make a difference to whether they are a divine manifestation of a continuing message.
Not really. You are making a very sophomore mistake in the theology. Nothing is a divine manifestation in Islam. Nothing. La ilaaha illaahuwa. Nothing is divine. And the Quran is the only book Muslims consider infallible. So your arguments are all exterior to the central Muslim tenets you picked from Dan Gibsons Petra thesis, and Don Hollands doubtful Muhammed thesis. But you also have not followed through with your prof Crone because she herself declared some of her earlier views in Hagarism has been wrong. And do you really agree with Don Hollands idea about coins? Don't you know that it was established that the earlier coins were used even after Muhammed? Do you know that he is no scholar and has not done the due diligence? Now I know for a fact you will not follow all. I have seen it enough brother, with all due respect, that is why I did not wish to discuss this subject.
As an aside i think that is why the christian story is more believable. By the time Imperial political types got their hands on the the religion there were already so many copies of the different books spread over so many different nations and languages and so much commentary already done by the previous generations that they could not rewrite or do any substantial editing. I bet Constantine wished he could have edited the books at Nicaea but they were stuck with established stuff that went back centuries.
What centuries? Brother. Please don't make this another thread about Bibles and manuscripts etc. Lets not. You are making vague statements. Show me one single manuscript of the New Testament dating to anything before a 100 years to Jesus's life. You will not find one. So lets hear it brother. Quote me a manuscript. Open another thread if you like.
And if you believe that the whole of the canon was established by the time the council of Nicea happened, where did the epistle of Barnabas, books of clement, Shepard of Hermes etc come into the Bible (New Testament) after the council?
I know that there was Biblie canon since Athanasius but your statements are just vague and extremely unscholarly. You are just driving this into a complete different subject, one after another because you are making snippets of statements rather than following one single little subject to deep levels.
I said so much with respect to your comments. Not inn favour of the subject at hand. Apologies to whoever tried to stick to theOP.
Peace.