Islam appeared around the 690s-700 C.E after the Arabs established an Arab Empire.
in the 9th century biographic material of Muhammad appeared
Did Muhammad Exist? - Robert Spencer lays out his argument that maybe he didn't exist
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
Islam appeared around the 690s-700 C.E after the Arabs established an Arab Empire.
in the 9th century biographic material of Muhammad appeared
It's funny but when I read the title of this thread, I thought it said, "Did Muhammed ALI exist"
And I was thinking, yeah, he existed, he was the greatest boxer ever and we will never see his like again.
As to Muhammed Muhammed existing or not. Who cares whether he existed. What matters is that people believe that he existed. (Same with JC.)
And I was thinking, yeah, he existed, he was the greatest boxer ever and we will never see his like again.
As to Muhammed Muhammed existing or not. Who cares whether he existed. What matters is that people believe that he existed. (Same with JC.)
Historical evidences supportive of the existence of religious figures such as Abraham,
Moses, Paul the apostle and Muhammad are way more rigorous than any kind of
evidence of the gods they are associated with. If vast majority of humanity can
believe in the existence of some kind of god based on more flimsy evidences
I don't see the merit of questioning the existence of the historical figures of religion.
Moses, Paul the apostle and Muhammad are way more rigorous than any kind of
evidence of the gods they are associated with. If vast majority of humanity can
believe in the existence of some kind of god based on more flimsy evidences
I don't see the merit of questioning the existence of the historical figures of religion.
+1
Misinterpretations by cavemen who believed the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth.
This is an argument which is being put forward in current popular histories of the period. It relies on the large amount of borrowing from Judaism and Christianity in Islam and the existence of a previous Judaic and Christian tradition in the Arab world and combines this with the fact that there is little contemporaneous written material on Islam in the Conquest Period in the early 7th Century.
The thesis is that Islam was a belief system developed in the post Conquest Period and then retroactively written into the accounts of the Arab Conquest of the Middle East and North Africa.
The thesis is that Islam was a belief system developed in the post Conquest Period and then retroactively written into the accounts of the Arab Conquest of the Middle East and North Africa.
In response to oil and gas. The reason we question the existence of the religious figures is the same reason we question the stories of religion and y we should question everything. Cause we want the truth. Cause we want to improve our lives. So if we have accurate archeological evidence or scientific evidence to dispute religious fables maybe it will shake some people out of there mindless following. That would be a nice wave to catch on.
In the mean time do some reading on the works of israel finkelstein. Professor at university of tel aviv
In the mean time do some reading on the works of israel finkelstein. Professor at university of tel aviv
Robert Spencer isnt exactly the best source to start this discussion, the man is your classic Islamophobe neo con nut job. Which come to think of it would give him lots of fans here. Anyone on the right or left that is so blinded with their ideology I don't buy into, geez you mi might as well start buying into Alex Jones as the next step. Did Muhammed exist? possibly there are Greek texts around 634 AD talking about a "false prophet amongst the Saracens" But the Muslim claim that he was illiterate is just wacky, the dude was a fairly successful merchant who had to read and sign contracts along receipts. No way an illiterate person could do that.
Like Jesus was a Jew and expanded the religion, Mohammad was a profit that recognised Jesus and God but was the latest profit. So the Jews deny Jesus and the Christians deny Mohammad .... and in 400 years - they will all deny IM469 and the sexual biblical revolution.
There is way more factual information (including birth, children, etc) about Mohammad than Jesus and personally I don't doubt his existance any more than Genghis Khan. I don't doubt (like many modern dictators) that he presented himself as a profit or God - I just don't believe it.
I believe that these new theories are in fact religiously biased and meant solely to degrade another's belief. I don't attack the stupidity of Christian beliefs or any others because for the simple minded - they need religion to cope with life.
There is way more factual information (including birth, children, etc) about Mohammad than Jesus and personally I don't doubt his existance any more than Genghis Khan. I don't doubt (like many modern dictators) that he presented himself as a profit or God - I just don't believe it.
I believe that these new theories are in fact religiously biased and meant solely to degrade another's belief. I don't attack the stupidity of Christian beliefs or any others because for the simple minded - they need religion to cope with life.
here is a book which say the same thing
Crossroads to Islam : the origins of the Arab religion and the Arab state
by Nevo, Yehuda D.
Summary
In the consensus view of early Muslim history, the Arab tribes, united and inspired by Muhammad's teachings, embarked on a military jihad that wrested Syria and Palestine from a weakened Byzantine Empire in the years after 630AD. But according to this radical revisionist treatise by the late Israeli archaeologist Nevo and Koren, an 'information specialist', every particular of this orthodoxy is wrong. Basing their arguments on a detailed examination of archaeology, contemporary texts, linguistic analyses and evidence from coins, the authors arrive at a thesis that will surely be incendiary to Islamic believers. The authors argue that Byzantium voluntarily transferred her eastern provinces to Arab client states in continuance of an imperial policy stretching back for centuries. The Arabs who took over the region after 630AD were not Muslims, but a mixture of pagans and adherents of a Judeo-Christian 'indeterminate monotheism' from which Islam evolved over succeeding decades. Muhammad was not a historical person, they argue, but a mythical figure who became, starting in the 690s, a 'National Arab Prophet' of a new official religion for the consolidating Arab state. In addition to the Muslim ire that the authors' religious debunking will raise, specialists in the field may have objections to their treatment as well. Especially unconvincing is their rational-actor account of Byzantine policy towards the eastern provinces, where, they assert, the Byzantine government deliberately fomented and then persecuted heresies, stoked hatred of the emperor himself and left its territories open to military incursions by rival powers, all in order to reconcile the inhabitants to their long-planned abandonment by the empire.
can you ever quote something from someone at least rational and scholarly ever!!! that book you cited by Nevo has been compared to a holocaust denier
"But then I would likely have thought the same thing of any single work of Holocaust revisionism, so perhaps Crossroads to Islam is worth at least our brief attention. There are some parallels, since like Holocaust deniers the authors don't merely question some aspects of the consensus view, they reject it wholesale. To wit, Crossroads to Islam argues that the rise of Islam as we currently understand it never happened: Muhammad did not exist as a historical person, there were no early Arab conquests, and Islam itself did not begin to take shape until Arab rulers essentially invented it starting in the 690s -- some seven decades after the traditional account has Muhammad unifying Arabia under Islam's banner."
http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2004/2004-02-33.html
wonder why those who questioned the origins of other religions are not compared to holocaust revisionists
Sort of like David Duke writing a history of Jews.
There may be some basis to the argument but Spencer isn't interested in academic 'truth' but merely anything to make Islam look bad. It's also not like any Muslims will be convinced by his arguments; he's only pandering to his base of xenophobes and racists.
I read Spencer's book. You should before you call him an "Islamophobe", which by the way is a term used by jihadists and other Muslim brotherhood types to quash any opposition to sharia...Spencer makes vald points and uses many sources, mostly Islamic and Arab. He is a scholar who tells it like he sees it, and it is unfortunate more government folks in the US don't pay more attention to him as he is probably the foremost scholar on islam today. I have read 3 or 4 of his books...he's right on!
IM469 stated: "There is way more factual information (including birth, children, etc) about Mohammad than Jesus" ...and your proof of that statement is where?? You sound like Obama...just make things up and state them as truth and people will buy it. ha!
