Did Mohammed Exist?

[Ibrahim]

Spencer is a "low level goof," but more importantly he is a propagandist who encourages various racists with his pseudo-scholarship

Which various racists are encouraged by him specifically? Maybe they exist, but that does not necessarily mean it is Spencer's fault and intention.

Spencer cynically writes for these people. Not only does he inspire their racism and hatred, but he profits by it. It's win-win for him. Ostensibly he's writing the books, so he knows how full of lavender he is and how little he knows about the subject.
At best he's a con man, at worst he's a wannabe Goebbels. Take your pick.

, and collectively the agitate for violence and discrimination against innocent people.

Where does Spencer himself specifically do that?

He provides the pseudo-intellectual backing for these racists. Folks like Anders Breivik read his books and then murder people. Useful idiots like certain members here merely spread the propaganda until it reaches the right people who are willing to act on their racist convictions.

If he is just an egg head pseudo scholar who vents his dislike of Islam.. no need to cry baby over him.

Well, I just continue to march on with facts and accredited scholarship, refuting lies and propaganda. Some people respond by throwing tantrums, ranting, hurling slurs, quiting forums, etc. You tell me who the cry babies are.

The arena where what I say applies though is not the academic, but the hot and public battle field. Where on the one side Muslims are anxious not to have their holy book and prophet challenged (let alone be ridiculed).. and on the other side the type of scholars or pseudo scholars that have an agenda of their own under the pretence of being academic. To me that is a natural sort of confrontation.. "birds of a feather flock together" type of thing. Illustrated with the fact, that you mentioned, that the two Islamic scholars or "scholars" in the initial video that Milo posted were in fact someone condoning terrorism and the other hardly a scholar at all.

It's very strange to claim that "Muslims" are the natural equivalent and opponent of a small group of motivated, racist propagandists working to spread hatred. Maybe what you meant to say is that the equivalent of Spencer et al would be certain extremist Islamists? Heh, "maybe."

Certain extremist Islamists.. of course and by default. Plus all Muslims who are anxious not to have their holy book and prophet challended let alone ridiculed and would jump with joy if civil law in the West would not tolerate such blasphemous acts. I suppose your bet is that even the latter is a small minority.. and that most will shrug their shoulders over it. Like you do.

So Muslims who don't like being insulted by racists are the same as extremists. Well, this stupid idea has been one you've clung to since you first outed yourself, so I shouldn't be surprised. My views on this "position" are already clear.

Again, this has the same fundamental flaw as your previous statement. A small coterie of unqualified hacks spreading racist hatred against Muslims and Arabs are certainly "goofs." Who did you mean to claim are the opposing faction of "goofs?" Because as you worded it above you were essentially making a group slur.

The other two goofs in the video, which is exactly what I said.

This was not clear from your statement. In any case I don't watch these videos.

Not sure what this rant has to do with anything. Hitchens and Harris are virulently anti-Muslim in their writing. As are several people on this forum, though they are not nearly so good at it. I am only judging people by their writing. What else is there to judge them on? People express their hatreds and irrational prejudices quite clearly.

There is nothing wrong with criticizing Islam, Muslims. Get used to it.

People have been doing it for 1400 years. Look how effective it's been!



But this issue here is pseudo-scholars or racists making inaccurate criticisms, often with the goal of spreading hatred and discrimination. And they are whining about their right to criticize not to avoid censorship, as nobody is trying to censor them, but in an attempt to avoid any critiques on their own writing.

Criticizing is not the same as inciting hatred, physical violence, stripping Muslims off their civil rights here in the West, putting families who didn't do anything wrong on an airplane to Saudi Arabia.

Several people who post on this forum and most of the so-called academics being discussed in this thread have either suggested some active discrimination, or directly inspired someone else to do the same.

[monster_gardener]

Spencer is a "low level goof," but more importantly he is a propagandist who encourages various racists with his pseudo-scholarship

Which various racists are encouraged by him specifically? Maybe they exist, but that does not necessarily mean it is Spencer's fault and intention.

Spencer cynically writes for these people. Not only does he inspire their racism and hatred, but he profits by it. It's win-win for him. Ostensibly he's writing the books, so he knows how full of lavender he is and how little he knows about the subject.
At best he's a con man, at worst he's a wannabe Goebbels. Take your pick.

, and collectively the agitate for violence and discrimination against innocent people.

Where does Spencer himself specifically do that?

He provides the pseudo-intellectual backing for these racists. Folks like Anders Breivik read his books and then murder people. Useful idiots like certain members here merely spread the propaganda until it reaches the right people who are willing to act on their racist convictions.

If he is just an egg head pseudo scholar who vents his dislike of Islam.. no need to cry baby over him.

Well, I just continue to march on with facts and accredited scholarship, refuting lies and propaganda. Some people respond by throwing tantrums, ranting, quiting forums, etc. YOu tell me who the cry babies are.

The arena where what I say applies though is not the academic, but the hot and public battle field. Where on the one side Muslims are anxious not to have their holy book and prophet challenged (let alone be ridiculed).. and on the other side the type of scholars or pseudo scholars that have an agenda of their own under the pretence of being academic. To me that is a natural sort of confrontation.. "birds of a feather flock together" type of thing. Illustrated with the fact, that you mentioned, that the two Islamic scholars or "scholars" in the initial video that Milo posted were in fact someone condoning terrorism and the other hardly a scholar at all.

It's very strange to claim that "Muslims" are the natural equivalent and opponent of a small group of motivated, racist propagandists working to spread hatred. Maybe what you meant to say is that the equivalent of Spencer et al would be certain extremist Islamists? Heh, "maybe."

Certain extremist Islamists.. of course and by default. Plus all Muslims who are anxious not to have their holy book and prophet challended let alone ridiculed and would jump with joy if civil law in the West would not tolerate such blasphemous acts. I suppose your bet is that even the latter is a small minority.. and that most will shrug their shoulders over it. Like you do.

So Muslims who don't like being insulted by racists are the same as extremists. Well, this stupid idea has been one you've clung to since you first outed yourself, so I shouldn't be surprised. My views on this "position" are already clear.

Again, this has the same fundamental flaw as your previous statement. A small coterie of unqualified hacks spreading racist hatred against Muslims and Arabs are certainly "goofs." Who did you mean to claim are the opposing faction of "goofs?" Because as you worded it above you were essentially making a group slur.

The other two goofs in the video, which is exactly what I said.

This wasn't clear from your statement. In any case I don't watch these videos.

Not sure what this rant has to do with anything. Hitchens and Harris are virulently anti-Muslim in their writing. As are several people on this forum, though they are not nearly so good at it. I am only judging people by their writing. What else is there to judge them on? People express their hatreds and irrational prejudices quite clearly.

There is nothing wrong with criticizing Islam, Muslims. Get used to it.

People have been doing it for 1400 years. Look how effective it's been!



But let me be be clear. My problem isn't with criticizing Islam. My two objections here are:

1. Pseudo-scholars producing garbage that is believed by idiots. This simply needs to be corrected by fact and legitimate scholarship, and it has been.


2. Racists and bigots trying to conceal their poisonous drivel behind the mantle of "free speech" and whining about "censorship." Racist filth is not the same as some legitimate scholarly investigation. Moreover, nobody is even trying to silence these people, just pointing out hateful garbage for what it is.

Criticizing is not the same as inciting hatred, physical violence, stripping Muslims off their civil rights here in the West, putting families who didn't do anything wrong on an airplane to Saudi Arabia.

Several people who post on this forum and most of the so-called academics being discussed in this thread have either suggested some active discrimination, or directly inspired someone else to do the same.

So all in all, life is good. Don't you agree?

For me, yes. For hate-filled racists, no. You live in a miserable prison of your own devising.

Thank you Very Much for your post, Ibrahim.

He provides the pseudo-intellectual backing for these racists. Folks like Anders Breivik read his books and then murder people.

For some strange reason, this reminds me of Mohammed:

He provided a pseudo/false religious backing for these murdering rapine raping "racists" (by your definition*)...... Folks like Osama bin Ladin and other creeps throughout history back to when Mohammed PROBABLY existed read his book and the books about him and then murder people........

People have been doing it for 1400 years. Look how effective it's been!

It depends on how you do criticize it..... Islam can be VERY resistant to the pen and the word........ Uses the sword on those who do listen and apostasize........

Thank G_d, Charlie was pretty effective at Hammering away at Islam and its bent on conquering the World Malignant Meme Mobots ....... No Tours of Europe for Murderous Muslim Tourists that time...... Likewise the Jan Sobieski and the Poles made a joke out of the Turks at the Gates of Vienna....... And the Hapsburgs, the Venetians and the Pope played rope a dope at Lepanto..... We Uz have occasionally done our part: Pirates Barbary and SE Asian........

But as your favorite scholar, Bernard Lewis, said...... Beware..... the Muslims keep trying and may get "Third Time" lucky


* What do Muslims think of infidels who resist..... Pretty bigoted...... And many of those who resist are a lot lighter in skin than the tan to brownie Arabs.... Same principle you use with a color swap

[Ammianus]

After so many pages of back and forth, bickering and snickering, I'll just to lay this out right here:

For those who believe that not only Muhammad was not the person the Koran and Hadiths claims to be, but that he never existed at all and was fabricated willy nilly, please explain how the Arab conquests of Mesopotamia, Syria, Egypt, North Africa, Iran, and Central Asia was able to take place within a period of little more than a generation (<30 years)

[Milo]

After so many pages of back and forth, bickering and snickering, I'll just to lay this out right here:

For those who believe that not only Muhammad was not the person the Koran and Hadiths claims to be, but that he never existed at all and was fabricated willy nilly, please explain how the Arab conquests of Mesopotamia, Syria, Egypt, North Africa, Iran, and Central Asia was able to take place within a period of little more than a generation (<30 years)

That's like saying that Thor must have existed, because the Vikings got the Danegeld.

[Ammianus]

After so many pages of back and forth, bickering and snickering, I'll just to lay this out right here:

For those who believe that not only Muhammad was not the person the Koran and Hadiths claims to be, but that he never existed at all and was fabricated willy nilly, please explain how the Arab conquests of Mesopotamia, Syria, Egypt, North Africa, Iran, and Central Asia was able to take place within a period of little more than a generation (<30 years)

That's like saying that Thor must have existed, because the Vikings got the Danegeld.

Not only conquered those places, but managed to create and sustain a centralized imperial superstructure (Ummayad and Abbasid Caliphates/Empires) when they had nothing of this sort back in Arabia and were nothing but primitive tribes to begin with

[Milo]

After so many pages of back and forth, bickering and snickering, I'll just to lay this out right here:

For those who believe that not only Muhammad was not the person the Koran and Hadiths claims to be, but that he never existed at all and was fabricated willy nilly, please explain how the Arab conquests of Mesopotamia, Syria, Egypt, North Africa, Iran, and Central Asia was able to take place within a period of little more than a generation (<30 years)

That's like saying that Thor must have existed, because the Vikings got the Danegeld.

Not only conquered those places, but managed to create and sustain a centralized imperial superstructure (Ummayad and Abbasid Caliphates/Empires) when they had nothing of this sort back in Arabia and were nothing but primitive tribes to begin with

So, M must have existed because people hundreds of years later created things that M never spoke about?

[AzariLoveIran]

.

.

After so many pages of back and forth, bickering and snickering, I'll just to lay this out right here:

For those who believe that not only Muhammad was not the person the Koran and Hadiths claims to be, but that he never existed at all and was fabricated willy nilly, please explain how the Arab conquests of Mesopotamia, Syria, Egypt, North Africa, Iran, and Central Asia was able to take place within a period of little more than a generation (<30 years)

.

.

Not only conquered those places, but managed to create and sustain a centralized imperial superstructure (Ummayad and Abbasid Caliphates/Empires) when they had nothing of this sort back in Arabia and were nothing but primitive tribes.

.

Interesting thought

All those places where conquered AFTER Moh, by Omar etc

and

those places were not conquered by power of Islam as a religion

but by sword .. you become Muslim or you dead, your wife and daughters sold to slavery and your asset divided between the murderers

Tchingiz Khan could easily have done same .. Monguls, after overrunning all ME (including Persia) could have destroyed all Iranian civilization, changed langauge to Mongolian language and changed religion to, say Buddhism .. same all ME that they overrun and murdered

But Tchingiz Giz was not after that, he just wanted to plunder .. Monguls became passionate and model Pomegranates, gave up their language and religion and adapted everything Persian as their own

Not so the tribe from Arabia

They wanted ARABIZE .. they specifically destroyed civilization to be replaced by Arabization .. burned Libraries (Persian and Alexandria) and and and .. explicit mission was replace greatest civilization with tribal Arabians from empire of sand

Islam was just a tool to fool the mass and a justification

in that sense

falling and destruction of all that space into Arabian hand must not be seen dependent on Moh as a leader of religion .. but .. as a beginning for first Pan Arabism .. Moh untied the Arabian tribes in desert (like Garibaldi uniting Idalia), gave them a reason to murder, plunder, destruct, all with good conscience (doing for Allah)

Monguls knew they rubbers, they were not preaching morality and ethics .. (united, primitive) Arabian tribes were doing all murdering and plundering Monguls were doing, but with good conscience and (they were thinking) for a good cause

Comparing to today , we have some similarity

Big powers, owning all instrument of genocide, nuclear, hydrogen, neutron, chemical, biological, economic power and and and .. they too, like Arabs of Moh into conquering, and, destroying other civilizations, ME lavender, Africa lavender, South America lavender

and

west

instead of using religion (that was the tool for Arabs a& Moh)

is using

slogans of democracy and freedom and and and

same game

Neither Arabs meant what they say Islam represents

Not West believing in democracy and freedom and other stuff of that nature

just different language and tools

Arab tribes tried to force their lavender on others (partially succeeded)

and

West trying to force their garbage on others (not working)


.

[Ibrahim]

After so many pages of back and forth, bickering and snickering, I'll just to lay this out right here:

For those who believe that not only Muhammad was not the person the Koran and Hadiths claims to be, but that he never existed at all and was fabricated willy nilly, please explain how the Arab conquests of Mesopotamia, Syria, Egypt, North Africa, Iran, and Central Asia was able to take place within a period of little more than a generation (<30 years)

Precisely. From a purely historical point of view, what needs to be explained is the sudden spontaneous unification and expansion of the Arabs. A singe charismatic leader is the best explanation for this, and given the nature of Arab and Aramaic culture, a religious leader is the most reasonable form for that unifier to take.


Let me use an analogy that will delight the Spencer/Breivik crowd: the "Muhammad didn't exist" revisionist theory is like arguing that Genghis Khan didn't exist. A bunch of tribes unified into a potent empire-conquering force for no reason whatsoever, then later they made up a unifying figure. It's illogical and inherently unconvincing even before it is subjected to rigorous historical examination.


That Muhammad unified the Arabs through religious and moral teachings rather than simple military wiliness is proven by the fact that this new civilization took root, endured, made countless contributions to art, science, and philosophy, and lasted to the present day with over a billion adherents despite political disunity and military reversals. The same has never held true of purely military empires.


So that leaves the revisionists with "well, maybe some guy did exist, but he just adopted Judaism and Christianity for the Arabs..." which is fine, because that's exactly what Islam always said it did.

[Ammianus]

After so many pages of back and forth, bickering and snickering, I'll just to lay this out right here:

For those who believe that not only Muhammad was not the person the Koran and Hadiths claims to be, but that he never existed at all and was fabricated willy nilly, please explain how the Arab conquests of Mesopotamia, Syria, Egypt, North Africa, Iran, and Central Asia was able to take place within a period of little more than a generation (<30 years)

That's like saying that Thor must have existed, because the Vikings got the Danegeld.

Not only conquered those places, but managed to create and sustain a centralized imperial superstructure (Ummayad and Abbasid Caliphates/Empires) when they had nothing of this sort back in Arabia and were nothing but primitive tribes to begin with

So, M must have existed because people hundreds of years later created things that M never spoke about?

Hundreds of years later? By your very own standard that supposition will have to incredibly naive, as they had to get cracking on those fabrications within 15-20 years after fake Big Mo's death in order to generate a stable mythology. Not only that, they had to either do one of the most tripping retcons (rivaling that of current bath salts) in human history by making almost every prominent tribal leaders in the 620-630's affiliated with fake Big Mo in some way both good and bad. Or they have to create ex nihilo the various personas associated with fake Big Mo in the first place if they did not exist.

I don't know, but this sounds alot like that Dan Brown book 9 years ago.

[Ammianus]

After so many pages of back and forth, bickering and snickering, I'll just to lay this out right here:

For those who believe that not only Muhammad was not the person the Koran and Hadiths claims to be, but that he never existed at all and was fabricated willy nilly, please explain how the Arab conquests of Mesopotamia, Syria, Egypt, North Africa, Iran, and Central Asia was able to take place within a period of little more than a generation (<30 years)

Precisely. From a purely historical point of view, what needs to be explained is the sudden spontaneous unification and expansion of the Arabs. A singe charismatic leader is the best explanation for this, and given the nature of Arab and Aramaic culture, a religious leader is the most reasonable form for that unifier to take.


Let me use an analogy that will delight the Spencer/Breivik crowd: the "Muhammad didn't exist" revisionist theory is like arguing that Genghis Khan didn't exist. A bunch of tribes unified into a potent empire-conquering force for no reason whatsoever, then later they made up a unifying figure. It's illogical and inherently unconvincing even before it is subjected to rigorous historical examination.


That Muhammad unified the Arabs through religious and moral teachings rather than simple military wiliness is proven by the fact that this new civilization took root, endured, made countless contributions to art, science, and philosophy, and lasted to the present day with over a billion adherents despite political disunity and military reversals. The same has never held true of purely military empires.


So that leaves the revisionists with "well, maybe some guy did exist, but he just adopted Judaism and Christianity for the Arabs..." which is fine, because that's exactly what Islam always said it did.

Sometimes I think it maybe much more fruitful to drop all that theological, supernatural baggage and supercessionist nonsense when analyzing Big Mo and instead view him strictly as a sociopolitical leader/general in the vein of Cyrus the Great, Philip of Macedon, Alp Arslan (of the Turks), Nurhaci (of the Manchus), and of course, Genghis Khan to better grasp what was really going on there. From this vein, "Islam" from the mid 7th to early 8th century less resembles a religion and more of a charismatic leadership cult for Arabian tribes, a beneficial gravy train allegiance for Yemeni ones, and a collaborationist, quasi-imperial framework for conquered local elites to ingratiate themselves. For the native Syrians, Mesopotamians, Iranians, Sogdians, etc. early on during that time, Islam probably resembles the model of Roman citizenship or Alexandrian Hellenization than an actual religion.

[Milo]

After so many pages of back and forth, bickering and snickering, I'll just to lay this out right here:

For those who believe that not only Muhammad was not the person the Koran and Hadiths claims to be, but that he never existed at all and was fabricated willy nilly, please explain how the Arab conquests of Mesopotamia, Syria, Egypt, North Africa, Iran, and Central Asia was able to take place within a period of little more than a generation (<30 years)

That's like saying that Thor must have existed, because the Vikings got the Danegeld.

Not only conquered those places, but managed to create and sustain a centralized imperial superstructure (Ummayad and Abbasid Caliphates/Empires) when they had nothing of this sort back in Arabia and were nothing but primitive tribes to begin with

So, M must have existed because people hundreds of years later created things that M never spoke about?

Hundreds of years later? By your very own standard that supposition will have to incredibly naive, as they had to get cracking on those fabrications within 15-20 years after fake Big Mo's death in order to generate a stable mythology. Not only that, they had to either do one of the most tripping retcons (rivaling that of current bath salts) in human history by making almost every prominent tribal leaders in the 620-630's affiliated with fake Big Mo in some way both good and bad. Or they have to create ex nihilo the various personas associated with fake Big Mo in the first place if they did not exist.

I don't know, but this sounds alot like that Dan Brown book 9 years ago.

Well, I actually demonstrated that Islam's own history indicates a cover up; the first Koran burning ever recorded was done by Uthman. So if you want to believe Islamic history when it says that M existed, but not when it says that it destroyed all kinds of evidence about his life, well, this isn't physics; no interpretations are invalid!

I'm really not out to convince you, and you are obviously talking past what I'm saying, but what I think people should take away from this is that M's existence, as Islamic history would have it, is not so definitive as many think.

[Ibrahim]

After so many pages of back and forth, bickering and snickering, I'll just to lay this out right here:

For those who believe that not only Muhammad was not the person the Koran and Hadiths claims to be, but that he never existed at all and was fabricated willy nilly, please explain how the Arab conquests of Mesopotamia, Syria, Egypt, North Africa, Iran, and Central Asia was able to take place within a period of little more than a generation (<30 years)

Precisely. From a purely historical point of view, what needs to be explained is the sudden spontaneous unification and expansion of the Arabs. A singe charismatic leader is the best explanation for this, and given the nature of Arab and Aramaic culture, a religious leader is the most reasonable form for that unifier to take.


Let me use an analogy that will delight the Spencer/Breivik crowd: the "Muhammad didn't exist" revisionist theory is like arguing that Genghis Khan didn't exist. A bunch of tribes unified into a potent empire-conquering force for no reason whatsoever, then later they made up a unifying figure. It's illogical and inherently unconvincing even before it is subjected to rigorous historical examination.


That Muhammad unified the Arabs through religious and moral teachings rather than simple military wiliness is proven by the fact that this new civilization took root, endured, made countless contributions to art, science, and philosophy, and lasted to the present day with over a billion adherents despite political disunity and military reversals. The same has never held true of purely military empires.


So that leaves the revisionists with "well, maybe some guy did exist, but he just adopted Judaism and Christianity for the Arabs..." which is fine, because that's exactly what Islam always said it did.

Sometimes I think it maybe much more fruitful to drop all that theological, supernatural baggage and supercessionist nonsense when analyzing {Muhammmad] and instead view him strictly as a sociopolitical leader/general in the vein of Cyrus the Great, Philip of Macedon, Alp Arslan (of the Turks), Nurhaci (of the Manchus), and of course, Genghis Khan to better grasp what was really going on there.

I see no reason that both cannot be happening at the same time. Muhammad must have been charismatic, but he also must have introduced new religious precepts as well. A tiny fraction of Arabs alone would have actually met Muhammad, and no Pomegranates or Romans/Greeks. He left something behind beyond his charisma.

From this vein, "Islam" from the mid 7th to early 8th century less resembles a religion and more of a charismatic leadership cult for Arabian tribes, a beneficial gravy train allegiance for Yemeni ones, and a collaborationist, quasi-imperial framework for conquered local elites to ingratiate themselves. For the native Syrians, Mesopotamians, Iranians, Sogdians, etc. early on during that time, Islam probably resembles the model of Roman citizenship or Alexandrian Hellenization than an actual religion.

For the tribal desert peoples, the religion and politics were linked as they had always been. For the Romanized urban classes, Islamic rule was initially less repressive and more effective than distant Byzantine overlordship or the focused tyranny of the late-state Sassanid Empire. So the initial appeal for those groups was more practical, though obviously the religion took root in a major way.

Desert-dweller and city-dweller was the great divide of Middle Easter civilization up until the late 20th century, and at it's outset Islam appealed to each in different ways.

[Ibrahim]

Well, I actually demonstrated that Islam's own history indicates a cover up;

You "demonstrated" nothing, rather you repeated something you read on a website that was itself produced by unqualified amateurs.


But the consolidation of the Quran under Uthman and the destruction of non-canon materials is a well-known, banal even, historical fact. Yet it is one that proves nothing about your amateur revisionism and has many parallels in other religions, such as the editing of the Bible in various Christian Councils, and the suppression of non-canon books, and of course the persecution of heretics.

I'm really not out to convince you,

That's good, since you have never convinced anyone of anything. You were right about one thing though:

It's really baffling that so many do such a lousy job.