In many cases, the particular forms of movement of various historical formations are hard to understand and only the specific features of the beginnings that relate to them can help explain. One of the less worked areas of the study of historical theory is the examination of genesis, origins and development. This is to be understood, as frequently long-extended processes would have to be examined in depth (consider for example the problem of the development of capitalism(s), which gave rise to the celebrated Transition debate,1 and we might mention the slow growth of feudalism,2 the creation of the polis, to the process – mostly only comprehensible through archaeology – of the period from the Dorian invasion to the Archaic Period,3 but let us refer to the various ethnogeneses with their wealth of mythical elements4 such as that of the Magyars, in connection with which there flourish to this day examples of the most utter rubbish, spurned by archaeology and linguistic analysis alike). Particularly important are the origins of the various religions, in which it is only an apparent easy solution that they can each be attached to a prophetic figure (such as Zarathustra, Buddha, Jesus, Mani or Mohamed), because for lack of reliable sources either material of later date inevitably blurs the precise outlines of the beginnings in tendentious and misleading depictions, especially when we do not possess an adequate knowledge of the historical circumstances and their provenance. In the case of the latter, the establishment of the beginnings plays a crucial role when a given religion has undergone various changes in the course of its history, as has been the case with Judaism, Mazdaism, Buddhism and Christianity. This is especially true of Islam, which, after the brief twenty years of its genesis, engendered the lengthy process of patrimonial imperialism through successful conquest and a protracted struggle in which the theocratic Muslim community overcame its ancient Oriental alternative (which might have been Byzantine cesaropapism and the Sasanian god-king model), and that meant the triumph of Mohamedan Islam. It also means, however, that because of the success of the "Islamic model" as a "preponderant factor" we find rather few elements that are alien to the system, for example in the system of institutions, but especially in the attitude to "otherness". The definition of the beginnings – narrowly restricted by the Koran and the prophetic tradition – stood firm even after the appearance of various foreign elements (Turkish, Mongol, Mameluk and Ottoman), and indeed after the failure of sundry attempts at reform, and the "Islamic model" of development even neutralised European influence.5 We know, of course, that even by then the attitude of orthodox Islam towards the actual beginnings was more than uncertain, but the image of Islam in recent years no longer has much in common with Mohamedan Islam. The Grand Inquisitor in Dostoyevski's The Brothers Karamazov mercilessly states that if Jesus were living today, he would be sentenced to death again.6 What would the self-styled "caliph" of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria have done with Mohamed if he had fallen into his hands? Of course, "invented tradition" cannot deviate too far from historical tradition, although we know that even that was a constantly changing composite image of the past that had been very partially selected from what was still known. It can be our task to find the way from probable depiction of origin to the framework of the Islamic society as it took shape, and to what it rejected under the influence of the beginnings, what it was indifferent to and what it preferred.