Mohammad never existed...

  • Thread starter Thread starter BrotherA
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BrotherA

Guest
Hello everyone

I have been listening to reports and documentaries covering research of people like: Robert Spencer,Brother Bruno Eymard, etc… they seem to reasonably prove that Mohammad actually never existed. Does anyone know more resources or youtube videos?

The basic facts that are indicated and what I think so far:

The Dome of the Rock existed before Mohammad and was/is a Christian Church.
The inscriptions in it, when read properly, they show the Mohammad means ‘the praised one’ or praise be’ and it referred to Jesus. It says that he is only a servant and messenger of God because that’s what those heretical Christians who made it believed.

Basically arabian rulers tried to copy what had happened in the Roman Empire.
Just as Christianity formed a Creed then a Book under the pressure of an Emperor who was concerned about the unity of his empire, so they formed Islam but with the original intention to form an imperialistic faith to hold an empire together.

Arabia was becoming Christian, but with heretical christianity spread by heretics who had run away from the Roman Empire since they could not agree with the Councils. They had run to Arabia because it was not in the Roman Empire and they could be free from the Persian Empire as well.

Arabs fought against each other, but the first people who got the upper hand decided to form one common faith in order to keep their arabian empire together. Since there was no arabic writings at the time but only the same writing brought it by the heretics, most arab memorized the Christian (heretical) faith. To make one Faith, the first Caliph ordered that all ‘recitations’ be put to writing and be sent to him. He then made only one copy which became both the arabian Creed and Bible. He persecuted and destroyed all other copies in order to have only one Faith under his rule.

Unlike Catholicism which was formed by the bishops who managed to make up their own mind more free from the emperor’s influence, Islam become formed by the caliph for the sole purpose of conquest. Everything about it is about holding together a rule and conquering more… the emperor did not know much about the Christian faith, he only knew that he had to have one religion and a religion which will make it easy to unite, conquer, and hold. So Mohammad which was a title for Jesus ended up being believed to be an arabian figure from collections of legends about ‘Jesus’ from the arabian point of view which ended up making the Hadiths.
The story about Mohammad ascending to heaven from the Temple Mount is really about Jesus ascension.

Brother Bruno Eymard indicates point by point how the Coran is a derivation of Bible verses written from the point of view an arab and a Christian heretic.

God bless and thanks for any resources on this.
 
As someone who loves Islam dearly, I ask you kindly to provide some non-biased evidence for your claims that comes from impartial, knowledgable sources. Because the grand majority of what you have written has bern refuted time and time again by both Muslims and also some non-Muslims as being little better than Islamophobic nonsense spread by those ignorant of either the Qur’an or Islam.
 
While I have my concerns about Islam obviously, I agree with Kouyate42 on this one.

This belongs in the same category as “Jesus never existed”.

Behind major movements and major religions there is always a powerful personality or personalities, whether it be Christ, Mohammed, Abraham, Moses, Buddha, Karl Marx, Lenin, the American Declaration of Independence, the Nazi Party or whatever.

Some have been around so long the original pioneers might be lost in the mists of history eg. Hinduism, but there’s always an originator - movements like this don’t happen in a vacuum.
 
Bob_Crowley said:
While I have my concerns about Islam obviously, I agree with Kouyate42 on this one.

This belongs in the same category as “Jesus never existed”.

Behind major movements and major religions there is always a powerful personality or personalities, whether it be Christ, Mohammed, Abraham, Moses, Buddha, Karl Marx, Lenin, the American Declaration of Independence, the Nazi Party or whatever.

Some have been around so long the original pioneers might be lost in the mists of history eg. Hinduism, but there’s always an originator - movements like this don’t happen in a vacuum.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
I love Islam dearly as well, I have Muslim friends who put me under pressure to study it and investigate it. Those are parts of the results I am finding.

Could you please indicate the refutations you are talking about?
Any source outside the Coran and Haddith showing the existence of a man named Mohammad in its contemporary time?

I have asked for more resources, please share if you have some.
 
Kouyate42 said:
As someone who loves Islam dearly, I ask you kindly to provide some non-biased evidence for your claims that comes from impartial, knowledgable sources. Because the grand majority of what you have written has bern refuted time and time again by both Muslims and also some non-Muslims as being little better than Islamophobic nonsense spread by those ignorant of either the Qur’an or Islam.
Click to expand...
One would do well not to love a religion that leads many to hate the Church that Christ himself instituted and also leads many to hell.
 
With regard to Uthman and his Qur’an text, all that happened was that localised spellings had come into the text of many Qur’ans being used, so he asked that the sahabah, who had lived as friends and companions of the Prophet Muhammad, were to oversee a writing of the Qur’an which standardized the text into a single dialectical form of Arabic which could be learnt by everyone, and which conformed to the text of the entire Qur’an they had been taught by the Prophet.

This corrected errors in both the written text and the recitation, and ensured the preservation of the Qur’an as it had been revealed.
 
I do not love the current religion which really look like an imperial ideology.

It seems more right to me that the world Islam was derived as explained below, written by Christian who was thinking about how Abraham was counted as ‘just’.
The word islâm, however, « is found in the last section of the inscription and is habitually taken here as a technical term. » It is a question of the phrase that we find again in the Qur’an, Sura 3, verse 19, of which Gnilka recopies the accepted translation: « The (only true) religion for God is Islam. » Note well that this translation requires a gloss, here in parentheses, that is not in the text.
Click to expand...
We have seen that the biblical parallel with the vocation of Abraham indicates a completely different meaning: it is from the root šlm, which is common to the Hebrew and Aramaic, that the word ’islam, « perfection » is derived. It designates the « justice », ’ad-dîn, with which Abraham is invested: « Justice, in the eyes of God, is perfection. »
from: site-crc.org/1869-from-islamophobia-to-islamology.html
Click to expand...
So the real meaning of the words in the Dome of the Rock is:
‘Justice, in the eyes of God, is perfection.’ not ’ the true religion for God is Islam’

I believe the truth about Islam can redeem Islam.
 
BrotherA said:
I do not love the current religion which really look like an imperial ideology.

It seems more right to me that the world Islam was derived as explained below, written by Christian who was thinking about how Abraham was counted as ‘just’.

So the real meaning of the words in the Dome of the Rock is:
‘Justice, in the eyes of God, is perfection.’ not ’ the true religion for God is Islam’

I believe the truth about Islam can redeem Islam.
Click to expand...
This is an odd perspective. The only Church in the entire world is the Roman Catholic Church and there is no religion but one. Islam, is absolutely not redeemable. The Koran is explicitly clear that they do not believe that Jesus is God. Any religion that denies this cannot lead to salvation.
 
Moserklj said:
This is an odd perspective. The only Church in the entire world is the Roman Catholic Church and there is no religion but one. Islam, is absolutely not redeemable. The Koran is explicitly clear that they do not believe that Jesus is God. Any religion that denies this cannot lead to salvation.
Click to expand...
I see what you mean, but as you may know, with the Anglican Ordinariate, many Anglicans are dropping some false beliefs they had and they are returning. If Islam is some kind of perversion of Christian faith, it is not excluded that something in it can be purified. Of course some false belief can’t be redeemed.
 
BrotherA said:
Hello everyone

I have been listening to reports and documentaries covering research of people like: Robert Spencer,Brother Bruno Eymard, etc… they seem to reasonably prove that Mohammad actually never existed. Does anyone know more resources or youtube videos?

The basic facts that are indicated and what I think so far:

The Dome of the Rock existed before Mohammad and was/is a Christian Church.
The inscriptions in it, when read properly, they show the Mohammad means ‘the praised one’ or praise be’ and it referred to Jesus. It says that he is only a servant and messenger of God because that’s what those heretical Christians who made it believed.

Basically arabian rulers tried to copy what had happened in the Roman Empire.
Just as Christianity formed a Creed then a Book under the pressure of an Emperor who was concerned about the unity of his empire, so they formed Islam but with the original intention to form an imperialistic faith to hold an empire together.

Arabia was becoming Christian, but with heretical christianity spread by heretics who had run away from the Roman Empire since they could not agree with the Councils. They had run to Arabia because it was not in the Roman Empire and they could be free from the Persian Empire as well.

Arabs fought against each other, but the first people who got the upper hand decided to form one common faith in order to keep their arabian empire together. Since there was no arabic writings at the time but only the same writing brought it by the heretics, most arab memorized the Christian (heretical) faith. To make one Faith, the first Caliph ordered that all ‘recitations’ be put to writing and be sent to him. He then made only one copy which became both the arabian Creed and Bible. He persecuted and destroyed all other copies in order to have only one Faith under his rule.

Unlike Catholicism which was formed by the bishops who managed to make up their own mind more free from the emperor’s influence, Islam become formed by the caliph for the sole purpose of conquest. Everything about it is about holding together a rule and conquering more… the emperor did not know much about the Christian faith, he only knew that he had to have one religion and a religion which will make it easy to unite, conquer, and hold. So Mohammad which was a title for Jesus ended up being believed to be an arabian figure from collections of legends about ‘Jesus’ from the arabian point of view which ended up making the Hadiths.
The story about Mohammad ascending to heaven from the Temple Mount is really about Jesus ascension.

Brother Bruno Eymard indicates point by point how the Coran is a derivation of Bible verses written from the point of view an arab and a Christian heretic.

God bless and thanks for any resources on this.
Click to expand...
This is all clearly falsifiable and totally contradicts the historical record. On many many levels.

Muhammad definitely existed. While drawing comparisons between The Qur’an and certain Christian stories is possible, it suggests (as we know) that Muhammad was familiar with Christianity and based his new faith on his warped understanding of Judeo-Christian narratives.

Muhammad is mentioned in far too many early sources to have been a fabrication, and the utter lack of positive evidence in the historical record that he didn’t exist should make anyone skeptical claims to the contrary (ie, there are no early polemicists of any faith to my knowledge that claim Muhammad wasn’t real).

From a secular point of view, there is arguably more historical evidence for the existence of Muhammad than there is for the existence of Jesus.
 
This seems much more unlikely than likely. Sometimes people forget that Islam is the only one of the major world religions to have been born and spread entirely within the scope of modern history. There are letters at least purported to be from Muhammad (which is to say, bearing his seal), such as that which tradition states was sent by Muhammad to the monks of the Monastery of St. Catherine on the Sinai Peninsula, of which a copy is still kept at the monastery itself.

In light of the evidence to the contrary, I’m not really sure I understand the point of advancing this clearly wrong and quite fanciful idea.
 
BrotherA said:
I love Islam dearly as well, I have Muslim friends who put me under pressure to study it and investigate it. Those are parts of the results I am finding.

Could you please indicate the refutations you are talking about?
Any source outside the Coran and Haddith showing the existence of a man named Mohammad in its contemporary time?

I have asked for more resources, please share if you have some.
Click to expand...
There have been at least 2 books published that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Napoleon (yes that Napoleon) never existed. At least one of these books was published during the lifetime of people who knew Napoleon.

Your argument is silly and only serves to avoid the actual matter of merit, namely was Mohammad a prophet.
 
I think spencer is right in concluding certain things, although Im not sure if I would go so far as to suggest Muhammad did not exist. That there was a core figure and the sources which we have that come later (100 to 200 years later) are traditions and legends which developed around this figure.
 
IgnatianPhilo said:
I think spencer is right in concluding certain things, although Im not sure if I would go so far as to suggest Muhammad did not exist. That there was a core figure and the sources which we have that come later (100 to 200 years later) are traditions and legends which developed around this figure.
Click to expand...
I agree with the second line.
I think the person Muslims and people in general think to be Mohammad is not the real Mohammad. Even the Coran is not as it is presented today. I am trying to get more from the translations of the original Coran made by Br. Bruno I mentioned above. Apparently he made translations of several Suras and what the translations reveal makes much more logical sense.

Here is an example from this article:
Confronted by the violent and unending conflicts between Jews and Christians in the peninsula, it is evident that the Quranic author was forced to reflect on why the alliance – the covenant with God – had come to this sorry pass. He remarks that the sign of the alliance with God is circumcision, and that the alliance was made with Abraham. Yet he also remarks that the first son of Abraham to be circumcised is not Isaac, but his son, Ismael, by the slave Agar. Recall that God demonstrated His power to Abraham, by giving a son, Isaac, to his elderly wife, Sarah. We know too that, with the assistance of Sarah, Agar and Ismael were sent away, and Ismael would become the father of the Arab people. Thus the alliance was made with Abraham, who was neither Jew nor Christian, but was a pagan who became “perfect” – the first Muslim. Abraham and his son Ismael were made “perfect men” - muslimayn – and they were told to consecrate their ancestors to God, to make of them a “perfect people” - muslimat.
Click to expand...
This call to perfection was a “justice” which came upon Abraham and Ismael (because God never stopped listening to the prayer of Agar and her son, according to the Quranic author) and also upon Isaac, Jacob, and all the prophets including Moses and Jesus without distinction. In other words, there is no distinction made between the Old and New Testaments, for the author holds that the Torah of the Jews and the Gospels of the Christians have been used wrongly to divide the peoples of the Book. The Jews are held to have fallen away from the law, and the Christians have distorted the prophetship of Jesus, making a mere man a God, and thus fallen into apostacy. The Quranic author apparently felt called to reunite the Peoples of the Book. This he does by taking the racial line of Judaism through circumcision and adding to it the call to perfection from the Gospels, emphasising all the time that the falling away of the Jews and Christians from God’s alliance did not abolish the alliance made with Abraham and Ismael…
Click to expand...
We see another view of Islam as “a call to perfection” In one sense, we have to see this theological reasoning as a stroke of genius by the author of the Qur’an, and as something that suited the warring theological atmosphere of the peninsula. Br. Bruno states:
The author does not have as a plan to found a third religion, but to abolish the two others – Jewish and Christian – by restoring what he believes is the sole “tradition” (qiblat) that of authentic Abrahaminism.
Whilst the first Sura is purely Jewish and very old, Sura II is concerned with reminding people of the demands of the Jewish Tora, and Sura III with the demands of the Christian Gospels. Thus Sura III ends with a prayer of the author’s making, the Our Master, Our Circumciser, which stands half way between the Yahweh of the Jews and the Pater Noster of the Christians.
Click to expand...
 
Prophet Mohammed’s descendants are living to this date. I doubt if any other religion can claim similarly (maybe Sikhism can).
 
Mohammad never existed?

I wouldn’t say that? I never knew my great grandmother. Yet, I believed she existed. We can not go back in time to see if he existed. The point is that people BELIEVE HE DID!

This is a CATHOLIC, non-Christian Forum. And, the real question is more than just did someone live and some one die? It’s that people do believe he did?

With everything that is happening in the world these days, the question is not if he existed, but it happened. A whole religion happened centered on Mahammed. The biggest questions for all of us is:

If he existed, what does that mean for Catholism and the Islamic Faith? For we are all doing the same thing? Evangalising?

The hot topic… Oh no… Another person will put down a, “Please see this thread on Islam” thread on this site.

Ok… I will look it up… but, don’t you think thats a great way to just say, “This is done now for other Catholic threads…”

I’m going,:confused: I’m going?
 
Entangled said:
Mohammad never existed?

I wouldn’t say that? I never knew my great grandmother. Yet, I believed she existed. We can not go back in time to see if he existed. The point is that people BELIEVE HE DID!

This is a CATHOLIC, non-Christian Forum. And, the real question is more than just did someone live and some one die? It’s that people do believe he did?

With everything that is happening in the world these days, the question is not if he existed, but it happened. A whole religion happened centered on Mahammed. The biggest questions for all of us is:

If he existed, what does that mean for Catholism and the Islamic Faith? For we are all doing the same thing? Evangalising?

The hot topic… Oh no… Another person will put down a, “Please see this thread on Islam” thread on this site.

Ok… I will look it up… but, don’t you think thats a great way to just say, “This is done now for other Catholic threads…”

I’m going,:confused: I’m going?
Click to expand...
mohammmad almost certainly existed

the issue(s) may lie in the fact that Mohammad combined pagan, jewish, christian, and gnostic “christian” teachings to form a religion but, fortunatll since God is Truth and one can diologue with part of the truth they have Eg: Most islam no O pronouncable so use i therefore making the christian and hebrew word for Jesus a different person and also Mary His mother over a 1000 years old

Shalom
God Bless
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top