Did Mohammed Exist?

[Mr. Perfect]

You know you've backed the wrong horse when you can't you even be honest about the qualifications of two unqualified people.

What does it mean when you can't be honest about someone's qualifications?

What qualifications scholastic wise did Allah require of Mohammed?

[Ibrahim]

OK Ibrahim was Mohammad qualified enough to write the Koran? I mean what were his credentials?

Ah, Muhammad didn't write the Quran. It was dictated to him by God. Now if you want to question God's credentials...

That would be an entirely different book

I think Hitchens, Dawkins, et al have published a few on that subject.

Hitchens' argument about God is actually very similar to Spencer's claims about Muhammad. "He doesn't/didn't exists, but it he does/did he is/was an asshole." Heady stuff!

Have they ever tried to translate the Koran into 16th century english? I mean it simply may need a make over that would meet the approval of the audience.

Come to think of it I don't know much about translations of the Quran into English prior to Pickthall, which, like the KJV, has a number of errors but is a very fine rendering in English. I know Pickthall started a number of academic and amateur organizations in England for Islamic studies, in part to convert people (as he himself converted) but made little headway. The idle classes of the day were more intrigued by Theosophism and Buddhism.

But Hitchens et al strike on one very good point: you may not agree with what God says. This never happens to theosophists.

[Hoosiernorm]

You know you've backed the wrong horse when you can't you even be honest about the qualifications of two unqualified people.

What does it mean when you can't be honest about someone's qualifications?

I personally blame Ibrahim who is obviously not Islamic enough to support his own criticism and of course Milo who is Canadian.

[Hoosiernorm]

OK Ibrahim was Mohammad qualified enough to write the Koran? I mean what were his credentials?

Ah, Muhammad didn't write the Quran. It was dictated to him by God. Now if you want to question God's credentials...

That would be an entirely different book

I think Hitchens, Dawkins, et al have published a few on that subject.

Hitchens' argument about God is actually very similar to Spencer's claims about Muhammad. "He doesn't/didn't exists, but it he does/did he is/was an asshole." Heady stuff!

Have they ever tried to translate the Koran into 16th century english? I mean it simply may need a make over that would meet the approval of the audience.

Come to think of it I don't know much about translations of the Quran into English prior to Pickthall, which, like the KJV, has a number of errors but is a very fine rendering in English. I know Pickthall started a number of academic and amateur organizations in England for Islamic studies, in part to convert people (as he himself converted) but made little headway. The idle classes of the day were more intrigued by Theosophism and Buddhism.

But Hitchens et al strike on one very good point: you may not agree with what God says. This never happens to theosophists.

Well this book is probably much better than his "Idiots Guide..." book which is probably like trying to figure out the trinity based on the number of drone strikes in Afghanistan. Perhaps eventually we will find out that Spencer is a closet Muslim.

[Ibrahim]

Well this book is probably much better than his "Idiots Guide..." book which is probably like trying to figure out the trinity based on the number of drone strikes in Afghanistan. Perhaps eventually we will find out that Spencer is a closet Muslim.

What better cover?

[Milo]

Perhaps it would be good to debate, or at least espouse, on whether M existed or not here?

I have always thought that there is a good case for "no", as there should be proof very readily available, and there isn't.

After all, according to the pro M version, M was doing all these massive things: conquering kingdoms, starting a new faith, crushing the old order... so why isn't history absolutely replete with accounts, from, for instance, the people being conquered? More importantly, from the people next to the people being conquered? From the, quite well established, churches at the time?

No coins.

No inscriptions.

This was some 1400 years ago too, they had alphabets and vellum: very efficient and durable information storage.

Nothing.

On the other hand, we do have evidence of a massive cover up of information about M.

From who, you ask? From Islamic history!

Muslims boast about Uthman ordering all the Korans and other works that he and his scholars of the time didn't like be rounded up and burned. Yes, burned! Muslims sure do get upset these days about the act of Koran burning... that they started! Muslims depict this destruction of most of their history as proof positive that their history is reliable, and of course it is... very... reliable

So, we have very little proof that M existed, none until some 60 years after he died, at best; and most of the documentation that spoke to it after the fact was burned because it was disliked by the ruling class. No reason to doubt his existence at all. Except, you know, every reason!

[Ibrahim]

Perhaps it would be good to debate, or at least espouse, on whether M existed or not here?

I have always thought that there is a good case for "no", as there should be proof very readily available, and there isn't.

Actually this is false. Look in Ammianus' thread about the Holland book and you'll find links to academic research on early Islamic history.

After all, according to the pro M version, M was doing all these massive things: conquering kingdoms, starting a new faith, crushing the old order... so why isn't history absolutely replete with accounts, from, for instance, the people being conquered?

You don't seem familiar with the most elementary details of Muhammad's life. He did not "conquer kingdoms" but rather supplanted paganism in and unified Arabia, and survived persecution by the previous rulers of Mecca to escape to Medina and then return to Mecca. The conquests, about which copious non-Arab written evidence exists, began with Abu Bakr.

In any case early Islamic history is replete with accounts.

More importantly, from the people next to the people being conquered? From the, quite well established, churches at the time?

There are references from this early period, as mentioned above. Read through Ammianus' thread and follow links to historical information about early Islamic history.

Muslims boast about Uthman ordering all the Korans and other works that he and his scholars of the time didn't like be rounded up and burned. Yes, burned! Muslims sure do get upset these days about the act of Koran burning... that they started! Muslims depict this destruction of most of their history as proof positive that their history is reliable, and of course it is... very... reliable

You're referring to one incident in an ongoing process of compiling, cross-referencing and editing the various traditions into a single volume. The obvious historical parallel would be the various Christian councils and the editing of the Bible, complete with condemned heretics, etc.

If your knowledge of Christian history is as superficial as your knowledge of Islamic history you might want to read up on the councils and early Christian heresies as well.

So, we have very little proof that M existed, none until some 60 years after he died, at best; and most of the documentation that spoke to it after the fact was burned because it was disliked by the ruling class. No reason to doubt his existence at all. Except, you know, every reason!

All of your arguments here are incorrect, because you base your knowledge on shoddy materials (mostly websites) with reinforce your biases, rather than putting the effort into learning legitimate history.

Also, in point of fact, you don't seem to understand anything about the historical method in general. There is very little concrete evidence for most historical figures. There is almost none for figures like Jesus, Muhammad, or Buddha, but they are widely accepted to have existed.

[Hoosiernorm]

When Abraham Lincoln died there were so many things written about him that were true, half true, almost true, said to have been true, and not even true that an entire myth was built up about this man who lived a mere 150 years ago. Some of the more popular myths that came to embody honest Abe were merely popular accounts that were circulated up to 80 years after his death. He became so popular that his corpse was stolen and his body was moved seventeen times and his coffin reopened several times just to make sure that he was indeed still inside of it.

That being said, if you were to take every account of Lincoln that was false and simply focus on what was known to be false you could then conclude that Lincoln did not exist. You could also deduce that he both existed and didn't exist based on the method that Spencer is using. Lincoln didn't appear on US currency until 1909 which of course means that he didn't exist and was a fabrication of the US government if we use Milo's argument here.

[Parodite]

When Abraham Lincoln died there were so many things written about him that were true, half true, almost true, said to have been true, and not even true that an entire myth was built up about this man who lived a mere 150 years ago. Some of the more popular myths that came to embody honest Abe were merely popular accounts that were circulated up to 80 years after his death. He became so popular that his corpse was stolen and his body was moved seventeen times and his coffin reopened several times just to make sure that he was indeed still inside of it.

We can only thank God that not some outlandish cult evolved around him with millions of deadly serious followers without a sense of humor.

[noddy]

.

[Ibrahim]

When Abraham Lincoln died there were so many things written about him that were true, half true, almost true, said to have been true, and not even true that an entire myth was built up about this man who lived a mere 150 years ago. Some of the more popular myths that came to embody honest Abe were merely popular accounts that were circulated up to 80 years after his death. He became so popular that his corpse was stolen and his body was moved seventeen times and his coffin reopened several times just to make sure that he was indeed still inside of it.

We can only thank God that not some outlandish cult evolved around him with millions of deadly serious followers without a sense of humor.

It is an indisputable fact that the US armed forces has killed millions of civilians since the death of Abraham Lincoln, some from sotries launched from an aicraft carrier bearing his name.

If you were of a... certain mindset, you might argue that Lincoln was the inspiration of a deadly cult. Sensible people (like me) would scoff at the notion, but it does remind my of a certain type of argumentation.





But Hoosier's point is correct. The actual concrete evidence for many historical figures is scant. There is very little direct evidence that figures like Caesar or Pericles really existed, let alone the major religious figures I've listed above.

[monster_gardener]

When Abraham Lincoln died there were so many things written about him that were true, half true, almost true, said to have been true, and not even true that an entire myth was built up about this man who lived a mere 150 years ago. Some of the more popular myths that came to embody honest Abe were merely popular accounts that were circulated up to 80 years after his death. He became so popular that his corpse was stolen and his body was moved seventeen times and his coffin reopened several times just to make sure that he was indeed still inside of it.

We can only thank God that not some outlandish cult evolved around him with millions of deadly serious followers without a sense of humor.

Thank you VERY MUCH for your post, Rhapsody Parodite.

We can only thank God that not some outlandish cult evolved around him with millions of deadly serious followers without a sense of humor.

GOOD ONE!



Thanks again.....

[Milo]

When Abraham Lincoln died there were so many things written about him that were true, half true, almost true, said to have been true, and not even true that an entire myth was built up about this man who lived a mere 150 years ago. Some of the more popular myths that came to embody honest Abe were merely popular accounts that were circulated up to 80 years after his death. He became so popular that his corpse was stolen and his body was moved seventeen times and his coffin reopened several times just to make sure that he was indeed still inside of it.

That being said, if you were to take every account of Lincoln that was false and simply focus on what was known to be false you could then conclude that Lincoln did not exist. You could also deduce that he both existed and didn't exist based on the method that Spencer is using. Lincoln didn't appear on US currency until 1909 which of course means that he didn't exist and was a fabrication of the US government if we use Milo's argument here.

Ah, the method S was using? I'm not sure what that means.

My argument would be that it is surprising that M did not go with the overwhelming convention of the times, and get his name, and/or Allah's, and/or the Koran's; on a coin or temple somewhere... anywhere really.

[Ibrahim]

My argument would be that it is surprising that M did not go with the overwhelming convention of the times, and get his name, and/or Allah's, and/or the Koran's; on a coin or temple somewhere... anywhere really.

Islamic sources always emphasize that Muhammad didn't want to become an object of veneration, and keep the emphasis on God rather than reverting to pagan practices. Also, in the Islamic view, this is where Christianity went wrong, turning Jesus into a god and worshiping him directly, and there was an express desire to avoid the same mistakes (or "mistakes" if you're Christian).


That Muhammad isn't named in temples or depicted on coins is consistent with Islamic theology and the traditional narrative.

[Milo]

My argument would be that it is surprising that M did not go with the overwhelming convention of the times, and get his name, and/or Allah's, and/or the Koran's; on a coin or temple somewhere... anywhere really.

Islamic sources always emphasize that Muhammad didn't want to become an object of veneration, and keep the emphasis on God rather than reverting to pagan practices. Also, in the Islamic view, this is where Christianity went wrong, turning Jesus into a god and worshiping him directly, and there was an express desire to avoid the same mistakes (or "mistakes" if you're Christian).


That Muhammad isn't named in temples or depicted on coins is consistent with Islamic theology and the traditional narrative.

No it is not, as said theology and narrative is missing: no Islam mentioned either.

[Ibrahim]

My argument would be that it is surprising that M did not go with the overwhelming convention of the times, and get his name, and/or Allah's, and/or the Koran's; on a coin or temple somewhere... anywhere really.

Islamic sources always emphasize that Muhammad didn't want to become an object of veneration, and keep the emphasis on God rather than reverting to pagan practices. Also, in the Islamic view, this is where Christianity went wrong, turning Jesus into a god and worshiping him directly, and there was an express desire to avoid the same mistakes (or "mistakes" if you're Christian).


That Muhammad isn't named in temples or depicted on coins is consistent with Islamic theology and the traditional narrative.

No it is not, as said theology and narrative is missing: no Islam mentioned either.

That is false, as the professor quoted in Ammianus' linked article, and whose institute Rhap later linked to, explains.

Islam is attested extremely early on, and the fact that Muhammad isn't carved into buildings and stamped on coins actually supports the traditional Islamic account.

[Milo]

My argument would be that it is surprising that M did not go with the overwhelming convention of the times, and get his name, and/or Allah's, and/or the Koran's; on a coin or temple somewhere... anywhere really.

Islamic sources always emphasize that Muhammad didn't want to become an object of veneration, and keep the emphasis on God rather than reverting to pagan practices. Also, in the Islamic view, this is where Christianity went wrong, turning Jesus into a god and worshiping him directly, and there was an express desire to avoid the same mistakes (or "mistakes" if you're Christian).


That Muhammad isn't named in temples or depicted on coins is consistent with Islamic theology and the traditional narrative.

No it is not, as said theology and narrative is missing: no Islam mentioned either.

That is false, as the professor quoted in Ammianus' linked article, and whose institute Rhap later linked to, explains.

Islam is attested extremely early on, and the fact that Muhammad isn't carved into buildings and stamped on coins actually supports the traditional Islamic account.

You should really learn to read; it would enable you to respond to what I posted.

[Ibrahim]

My argument would be that it is surprising that M did not go with the overwhelming convention of the times, and get his name, and/or Allah's, and/or the Koran's; on a coin or temple somewhere... anywhere really.

Islamic sources always emphasize that Muhammad didn't want to become an object of veneration, and keep the emphasis on God rather than reverting to pagan practices. Also, in the Islamic view, this is where Christianity went wrong, turning Jesus into a god and worshiping him directly, and there was an express desire to avoid the same mistakes (or "mistakes" if you're Christian).


That Muhammad isn't named in temples or depicted on coins is consistent with Islamic theology and the traditional narrative.

No it is not, as said theology and narrative is missing: no Islam mentioned either.

That is false, as the professor quoted in Ammianus' linked article, and whose institute Rhap later linked to, explains.

Islam is attested extremely early on, and the fact that Muhammad isn't carved into buildings and stamped on coins actually supports the traditional Islamic account.

You should really learn to read; it would enable you to respond to what I posted.

Oh I think I have it under control.

[Hoosiernorm]

Ah, the method S was using? I'm not sure what that means.

My argument would be that it is surprising that M did not go with the overwhelming convention of the times, and get his name, and/or Allah's, and/or the Koran's; on a coin or temple somewhere... anywhere really.

Because Spencer is using non existent items to prove that by their non existence that Mo did not exist. I can not think of another non Roman military force that immediately set forth to destroy the currencies of conquered kingdoms. Mo brought a revolutionary idea to the ME of monotheism for the masses. Zoroastrianism didn't have great military success and the Jews would not bring non believers into their tribe. His success militarily and ideologically are a strong basis for his existence.

[Ibrahim]

Ah, the method S was using? I'm not sure what that means.

My argument would be that it is surprising that M did not go with the overwhelming convention of the times, and get his name, and/or Allah's, and/or the Koran's; on a coin or temple somewhere... anywhere really.

Because Spencer is using non existent items to prove that by their non existence that Mo did not exist. I can not think of another non Roman military force that immediately set forth to destroy the currencies of conquered kingdoms. Mo brought a revolutionary idea to the ME of monotheism for the masses. Zoroastrianism didn't have great military success and the Jews would not bring non believers into their tribe. His success militarily and ideologically are a strong basis for his existence.

Slight detail being that most of the military successes were after Muhammad's lifetime, and the defeat of the Quraysh being mostly ascribed to semi-miracles. Muhammad isn't much of a military leader in the traditional accounts, Umar and Abu Bakr are the warriors.

But your point stands. Even if somebody ignores or is unaware of or doesn't care about historical evidence, I think the fact of the sudden unification and expansion of the Arabs indicates that something happened. A new religious movement/charismatic individual is the most reasonable explanation, and it conforms with all of the traditional accounts. I don't see the logical appeal of any account that has the Arabs suddenly unify and expand for no reason, then invent a religion and Prophet afterwards. It's counterintuitive even before you start poking historical holes in it.

[Parodite]

Slight detail being that most of the military successes were after Muhammad's lifetime, and the defeat of the Quraysh being mostly ascribed to semi-miracles. Muhammad isn't much of a military leader in the traditional accounts, Umar and Abu Bakr are the warriors.

Is that the Abu Bakr who codified the Quran into one volume?

[Ibrahim]

Slight detail being that most of the military successes were after Muhammad's lifetime, and the defeat of the Quraysh being mostly ascribed to semi-miracles. Muhammad isn't much of a military leader in the traditional accounts, Umar and Abu Bakr are the warriors.

Is that the Abu Bakr who codified the Quran into one volume?

The process of collecting and recording in written form what would eventually become the present Quran began during the Caliphate of Abu Bakr, and continued after his death.

[Parodite]

Slight detail being that most of the military successes were after Muhammad's lifetime, and the defeat of the Quraysh being mostly ascribed to semi-miracles. Muhammad isn't much of a military leader in the traditional accounts, Umar and Abu Bakr are the warriors.

Is that the Abu Bakr who codified the Quran into one volume?

The process of collecting and recording in written form what would eventually become the present Quran began during the Caliphate of Abu Bakr, and continued after his death.

I'm just wondering, if (at least part of) the motivation of Abu Bakr for establishing the first edition was to get the conquered people's very diversed (pagan) minds all tuned in and to looking in the same direction, with the goal of making it easier to manage a big Caliphate. Something like swearing loyalty to the same flag, singing the same "national hymn". As an ordering principle of ancient society of which there are more examples. A shared and new national-religious history had to be written. Holy poetry at the service of wordly power.

[Milo]

Ah, the method S was using? I'm not sure what that means.

My argument would be that it is surprising that M did not go with the overwhelming convention of the times, and get his name, and/or Allah's, and/or the Koran's; on a coin or temple somewhere... anywhere really.

Because Spencer is using non existent items to prove that by their non existence that Mo did not exist. I can not think of another non Roman military force that immediately set forth to destroy the currencies of conquered kingdoms. Mo brought a revolutionary idea to the ME of monotheism for the masses. Zoroastrianism didn't have great military success and the Jews would not bring non believers into their tribe. His success militarily and ideologically are a strong basis for his existence.

They are a strong basis for the existence of the military and ideological success.

Do you think that the existence of the Swiss Guard is proof of the existence of Jesus?

And it should be noted that Spencer advances several positive evidence arguments for the existence of a Christian sect as the initial inspiration for the Arabs, that Mohammed was the sect's way of naming Christ. This builds on Christophe Luxenberg's work, proposing a Christian Syrrio-Aramaic origin for the Koran; later mistranslated into Arabic. You may not like Luxenberg's work but his methodology is considered sound.

http://goo.gl/xQdfM

So, it's a matter of knowing what the facts are before you make an argument. I know that can be very tedious but it is good form!

[Hoosiernorm]

Ah, the method S was using? I'm not sure what that means.

My argument would be that it is surprising that M did not go with the overwhelming convention of the times, and get his name, and/or Allah's, and/or the Koran's; on a coin or temple somewhere... anywhere really.

Because Spencer is using non existent items to prove that by their non existence that Mo did not exist. I can not think of another non Roman military force that immediately set forth to destroy the currencies of conquered kingdoms. Mo brought a revolutionary idea to the ME of monotheism for the masses. Zoroastrianism didn't have great military success and the Jews would not bring non believers into their tribe. His success militarily and ideologically are a strong basis for his existence.

They are a strong basis for the existence of the military and ideological success.

Do you think that the existence of the Swiss Guard is proof of the existence of Jesus?

See what I mean. When you base the argument on non contingent elements then you get a logic that is flawed even though it makes complete sense. This of course is why when you look at US currency that you can conclude that we are all freemasons who are originally from Greece and worship eagles.