Isn't Robert Spencer's mythicist theory on Muhammad pretty dangerous?

[MarcoPG]

Why not!

Why not put the prophet of Arabia, their Quran book, their ideology of Islam under investigation, historical scrutiny and under the microscope as many others have done to the Bible, Our Lord Jesus Christ, Saint Paul, the New Testament… etc. etc…

Islam is no exception.

Sure it is useful, but it is different than claiming the founder of a religion didn’t walk this earth, be this true or not, mythicists could use the same logic on Jesus, and say the apostles were like the arabs conquerers, a bunch of illuminati, or Jesus was a later invention in order to cover their political agenda, pretty much what Robert Spencer has said about Muhammad.
Again, I am not saying this same logic could be used on Christianity, that would be the same if it was true or false, because the mythicists wouldn’t use this argument of Christ’s invention to investigate Christianity, but as an easy way to attack it. I know, it sounds a stupid tactic, but we have enough marginal opinions. The more marginal, the more agressive and annoying to respond to. That is I would like to avoid by pointing out the danger of reflecting on the Lord like Spencer does on Muhammad, which is absence of textual proof.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Sure it is useful, but it is different than claiming the founder of a religion didn’t walk this earth, be this true or not, mythicists could use the same logic on Jesus, and say the apostles were like the arabs conquerers, a bunch of illuminati, or Jesus was a later invention in order to cover their political agenda, pretty much what Robert Spencer has said about Muhammad.
Again, I am not saying this same logic could be used on Christianity, that would be the same if it was true or false, because the mythicists wouldn’t use this argument of Christ’s invention to investigate Christianity, but as an easy way to attack it. I know, it sounds a stupid tactic, but we have enough marginal opinions. The more marginal, the more agressive and annoying to respond to. That is I would like to avoid by pointing out the danger of reflecting on the Lord like Spencer does on Muhammad, which is absence of textual proof.

They do use the same logic on Jesus, in fact in general Gods existence is questioned in the same manner, combine theoretical and practical knowledge and its implementation. So we would be saying this should not extend to radical philosophy. Which a quick search of researches in Judaism, Islam and Christianity all prove this false.

 

[MarcoPG]

They do use the same logic on Jesus, in fact in general Gods existence is questioned in the same manner, combine theoretical and practical knowledge and its implementation. So we would be saying this should not extend to radical philosophy. Which a quick search of researches in Judaism, Islam and Christianity all prove this false.

I mean that such a claim on Muhammad is just more water to the mill of mythicists

 

[GaryTaylor]

I mean that such a claim on Muhammad is just more water to the mill of mythicists

So your argument is we shouldn’t use radical rhetorical philosophy because we don’t need more water on the mill? For example Dr. Peter Kreeft debated with Spencer “Is the only good muslim, a bad muslim”. Is it more water on the mill?

 

[GaryTaylor]

I don’t get it, of what point, should we charitably not speak? Is there a certain suppression of questions and thoughts?

 

[MarcoPG]

I don’t get it, of what point, should we charitably not speak? Is there a certain suppression of questions and thoughts?

My point is while talking about Muhammad, Mr. Spencer should give arguments for Jesus, so this would be complete, and show why the cases are very different.

By only talking about this Muhammad myth, he lets mythicists use his arguments, where he could close the discussion with a little appendice on why Jesus on the other hand existed.

 

[GaryTaylor]

My point is while talking about Muhammad, Mr. Spencer should give arguments for Jesus, so this would be complete, and show why the cases are very different.

By only talking about this Muhammad myth, he lets mythicists use his arguments, where he could close the discussion with a little appendice on why Jesus on the other hand existed.

He does in another book, “Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn’t”

Spencer writes not to proselytize, but to state a fact: Christianity is a true “religion of peace,” and on it Western civilization stands. If we are not to perish under Islam’s religion of the sword–with its more than 100 million active jihadists seeking to impose sharia law–we had better defend our own civilization.

 

[MarcoPG]

Quote:
Spencer writes not to proselytize, but to state a fact: Christianity is a true “religion of peace,” and on it Western civilization stands. If we are not to perish under Islam’s religion of the sword–with its more than 100 million active jihadists seeking to impose sharia law–we had better defend our own civilization.

Gary, from this quote, you talk about a different issue. You talk about a comparison of two religious views, not whether the founder of those two existed. That Muslims seek to impose the sharia is possible apart from the fact that Muhammmad indeed existed or not.

 

[GaryTaylor]

. You talk about a comparison of two religious views, not whether the founder of those two existed. That Muslims seek to impose the sharia is possible apart from the fact that Muhammmad indeed existed or not.

Right and thats what Spencer does on the book in question, in my understanding its a religious comparison of the Quran in relation to a historical understanding of Mohammed.

answeringmuslims.com/2012/05/robert-spencer-vs-david-wood-did.html

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.answering-islam.org%2Fauthors%2Froark%2Fmuhammad_exist.html&ei=586WVNrYD4GlgwS2xYHoDg&usg=AFQjCNEldlQFSaZ8hLLZoHjeIDN3OwQw_Q

 

[MarcoPG]

Right and thats what Spencer does on the book in question, in my understanding its a religious comparison of the Quran in relation to a historical understanding of Mohammed.

answeringmuslims.com/2012/05/robert-spencer-vs-david-wood-did.html

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.answering-islam.org%2Fauthors%2Froark%2Fmuhammad_exist.html&ei=586WVNrYD4GlgwS2xYHoDg&usg=AFQjCNEldlQFSaZ8hLLZoHjeIDN3OwQw_Q

The video of the link is what started my questioning.

Fine, but this is the book Did Muhammad exist? And we are at the beginning once again. In chapter 2: Jesus, the Muhammad, Spencer gives theological, liturgical and historical arguments about the beliefs of Christianity, possibl borrowed by Islam, not the historicity of Jesus. That I find dangerous. Mythicists will certainly use this in the worst way possible to discredit the Lord as well.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The video of the link is what started my questioning.

Fine, but this is the book Did Muhammad exist? .

Thats what they are discussing,

And we are at the beginning once again. In chapter 2: Jesus, the Muhammad, Spencer gives theological, liturgical and historical arguments about the beliefs of Christianity, possibl borrowed by Islam, not the historicity of Jesus.

Right, and why can’t people inverstigate this?

That I find dangerous.

Others don’t, but your entitled to this.

Mythicists will certainly use this in the worst way possible to discredit the Lord as well.

Mythicists, and mythicists will do as they will probably already do. How do you suggest its even a myth? What point of his argument historcially do you disagree with? You haven’t established a myth, you assume you are correct in this regard?

How so?

 

[MarcoPG]

Thats what they are discussing,

Right, and why can’t people inverstigate this?

Others don’t, but your entitled to this.

Mythicists, and mythicists will do as they will probably already do. How do you suggest its even a myth? What point of his argument historcially do you disagree with? You haven’t established a myth, you assume you are correct in this regard?

How so?

1. Yes, but not in the book you quoted to prove your point
2. It can and should, in a way that doens’t start with an agenda, but honestly
3. I do because of number 2, agendas, which are always destructive more than constructive in the mythicist field.
4. I don’t agree nor desagree, I only say it is dangerous to claim something which could be said of Jesus. And for the last time, Jesus’ myth claims could be answered, but mythicists will as you try to use Islam’s “myths” to side-attack Jesus’ historicity.
   Did I assume anything - that I must be correct - in stating that I find it dangerous? I don’t think so.

But an example from “Did Muhammad exist?”

“In all his discussions of the Saracens, Sophronius shows some familiarity with their disdain of the cross …] but he never calls them Muslims and never refers to Muhammad, the Quran or Islam.”

So, my point is once again: the same could be said by RIchard Carrier for instance when taking some extrabiblical texts on Jesus: references of Christians do not prove Christ, Chrestos may or may not be Christ, the spread f Christianity doesn’t by itself prove the Person of Christ. That’S it. I don’t assume anything. I don’t shed doubt on Christ, not much on Muhammad, but all I am saying is it is dangerous not to show evidence for Jesus when giving evidence against the same kind of texts about Islam.

 

[GaryTaylor]

but all I am saying is it is dangerous not to show evidence for Jesus when giving evidence against the same kind of texts about Islam.

And I’m saying it wasn’t the intention of his book, in which he did write others. But should you think he should have done something else in regards to this book, you are certainly entitled to that opinion.

 

[MarcoPG]

And I’m saying it wasn’t the intention of his book, in which he did write others. But should you think he should have done something else in regards to this book, you are certainly entitled to that opinion.

Yes it is my opinion that he should have written about arguments for Christianity, and my first post was asking for opinions, not whether R. SPencer is entitled or not to talk about Islam, or whether or not he is right, nor lastlywas I assuming having the key of the problem. I was saying in my opinion this theory is dangerous for his own - our - historical claims, which can’t be accepted be skeptics in the same way he doesn’t accept historicity in Islam based on the same process.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Yes it is my opinion that he should have written about arguments for Christianity, and my first post was asking for opinions, not whether R. SPencer is entitled or not to talk about Islam, or whether or not he is right, nor lastlywas I assuming having the key of the problem. I was saying in my opinion this theory is dangerous for his own - our - historical claims, which can’t be accepted be skeptics in the same way he doesn’t accept historicity in Islam based on the same process.

Yes it is your opinion, mine is the debate was fine, of no issue and informative, did you watch the video, what was wrong with it?

My point isn’t if he is entitled to speak on Islam either, nor if he is right or not. But the point of this book in question was not in relation to anything but Islam. So this conclusion you reach…

I was saying in my opinion this theory is dangerous for his own - our - historical claims, which can’t be accepted be skeptics in the same way he doesn’t accept historicity in Islam based on the same process.

His theory can be accepted or not, I don’t see where its dangerous of our own, nor where others will reach like conclusions, so what can’t and can be done is relative how?

 

[MarcoPG]

Yes it is your opinion, mine is the debate was fine, of no issue and informative, did you watch the video, what was wrong with it?

My point isn’t if he is entitled to speak on Islam either, nor if he is right or not. But the point of this book in question was not in relation to anything but Islam. So this conclusion you reach…

His theory can be accepted or not, I don’t see where its dangerous of our own, nor where others will reach like conclusions, so what can’t and can be done is relative how?

It may look like I repeat myself, but to sum it up, a skeptic could say: This text talks about an arab prophet which conquered Egypt. Later John Damascus talk about the Ishmaelites whose superstition is of the demon. Is this proof of Mohammed’s existance?

Similarly: This text mentions Jesus called Christ. This other Chrestos. Is this proof?

That kind of parallel would be another bullet in the mythicist gun . And that was the (name removed by moderator)ut of the thread.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Yes it is my opinion that he should have written about arguments for Christianity, and my first post was asking for opinions, not whether R. SPencer is entitled or not to talk about Islam, or whether or not he is right, nor lastlywas I assuming having the key of the problem. I was saying in my opinion this theory is dangerous for his own - our - historical claims, which can’t be accepted be skeptics in the same way he doesn’t accept historicity in Islam based on the same process.

The base premise of his work, the questioning of the historical status of an important religious figure or founder of a religion, isn’t “dangerous” in itself. It’s actually a valid question from the standpoint of logic and reason. The “dangerous” part would be the methodology used and the criteria used to determine if the individual was or was not a historical person. Also, the idea that it is “dangerous” to examine the historical status of figures in other religions because doing so would logically lead to an examination of the historical status of figures in one’s own religion is based on either a) the fear that figures in one’s own religion aren’t historical and/or b) the fear that the methodology and criteria used to disprove the historical status of figures in another religion will also disprove the historical status of figures in one’s own religion because said items were intentionally or unintentionally designed to disprove the figures in the other religion.

The objection to Mr. Spencer’s work shouldn’t be that he (or according to another poster he let other people do it and he merely compiled their work) questioned the historical status of Muhammad, but that his methodology and criteria for determining the historical status of Muhammad are unprofessional and flawed, and that this loaded the question in such a way as to produce only one logical result as it would for any other historical person placed under them.

And while not the meat of your above, Mr. Spencer like everyone else is actually entitled to question his own or other religions, their teachings, and their history. If I understand the Church’s teaching on this, his only requirements are to do so in a respectful and charitable manner.

 

[GaryTaylor]

It may look like I repeat myself, but to sum it up, a skeptic could say: This text talks about an arab prophet which conquered Egypt. Later John Damascus talk about the Ishmaelites whose superstition is of the demon. Is this proof of Mohammed’s existance?

Similarly: This text mentions Jesus called Christ. This other Chrestos. Is this proof?

That kind of parallel would be another bullet in the mythicist gun . And that was the (name removed by moderator)ut of the thread.

So you propose all writers should stick to a like agenda in regards to all religion? How is that possible. I think one might argue the continued approach of Spencer may not be an approach advised by Catholicism. Thats more of an evaluation of his entire body of work.

 

[MarcoPG]

So you propose all writers should stick to a like agenda in regards to all religion? How is that possible. I think one might argue the continued approach of Spencer may not be an approach advised by Catholicism. Thats more of an evaluation of his entire body of work.

Just the opposite, I am warning of some mythicists whose agenda would be halped by some easy made parallels or amalgams in religious history.
Agendas of denial of mythicists and defense of the faith by rejecting other teachings, by any believer actuallly, are two separate things, and again some opponents may take them as one to serve their purposes.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Just the opposite, I am warning of some mythicists whose agenda would be halped by some easy made parallels or amalgams in religious history.
Agendas of denial of mythicists and defense of the faith by rejecting other teachings, by any believer actuallly, are two separate things, and again some opponents may take them as one to serve their purposes.

I’m confused by what your saying, so don’t take it to mean I disagree with you. Ok so mythical inquires will turn into a new phenom by these comparisions.

Agendas of denial of mythical inquiry and defense of faith by rejecting teachings of those who believe are two different paths indeed. But the mythical inquiry is based on this supposed historical research. Now its a good point to address that alone. Its also the point of why I never read the book.

I think on this point oldcatholicguy is right. That said “someone” should read his “entire content” to see what in the world is going on with this fellow who is himself reaching phenom status. Could be hes just telling people what they want to hear and making a few bucks while risking his own life too. Which is probably the whole point of why he is doing what he is doing. I suppose if your conscience is so motivated to speak and write at breakneck speed on some apparent agenda, then something should be done.