Mohammad never existed...

  • Thread starter Thread starter BrotherA
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
I agree with you. What doesn’t make sense to me, however, is how a Christian can love another religion dearly. I have Muslim friends that I love, but I do not love their religion. Just like how a mother can love her son but absolutely detest his actions and the fact that he does drugs. There are some ideas in some religions that I do appreciate, but I do not love the religion itself. I understand respecting other faiths, and I do respect them, but I cannot say I love a false religion started by a false prophet. Following Islam is following a false religion and that is a sin. We are to hate sin. Not love it. For scripture says The Bible says that not only does God hate sin but it also says that those who love the Lord should also hate evil and sin. Muhammad was not a messenger of God. The man who started Islam was a false prophet and scripture says that someone like that should be eternally condemned.
 
Why does the OP spells it 'Coran"? I haven’t seen that spelling version in English.
 
I agree with you. What doesn’t make sense to me, however, is how a Christian can love another religion dearly. I have Muslim friends that I love, but I do not love their religion. Just like how a mother can love her son but absolutely detest his actions and the fact that he does drugs. There are some ideas in some religions that I do appreciate, but I do not love the religion itself. I understand respecting other faiths, and I do respect them, but I cannot say I love a false religion started by a false prophet. Following Islam is following a false religion and that is a sin. We are to hate sin. Not love it. For scripture says The Bible says that not only does God hate sin but it also says that those who love the Lord should also hate evil and sin. Muhammad was not a messenger of God. The man who started Islam was a false prophet and scripture says that someone like that should be eternally condemned.
I’m a non-Christian and I am discerning which faith I truly believe in.
Why does the OP spells it 'Coran"? I haven’t seen that spelling version in English.
Actually there are variant spellings including the OP’s, Qur’an (technically the correct spelling as this is pretty much how you spell it in Arabic), Koran and others. it may be that the OP is not a native English speaker, as Coran is the correct spelling in French, Italian and other languages. But really there’s no rules on how to correctly transliterate Arabic letters to English letters, hence the variant spellings over history and in different languages.
 
I found the video very interesting & the author absolutely raised some points that raise some serious questions…
…Islam claims Jesus was a regular man who was just a lessor Prophet & like Islam claims Jesus wasn’t crucified.
…Robert Spencer finds no historical evidence at all that Muhammad existed apart from a common title.

The point about the coins containing crosses as well as public buildings sounds very odd…
…Given that Islam claims the cross is a blasphemous sign that Jesus Himself will break when He returns.
…I’m going to buy this guys book and check the rest of it out.
 
I did not watch the video, and most likely will not (there are enough good apologetics against Islam that I don’t really need to look at the more far-fetched ones), but it is not so unusual that there may be cruciform symbols found in Islamic societies. If I recall correctly, Suha Rassam’s Christianity in Iraq (Gracewing Pub., 2006; now in its second printing) mentions something about a popular pastry in Oman (?), which the women who bake it make a cross-form across the top of the bread prior to putting it in the oven, but it is no longer remembered by them what this symbolism means. Rassam ties it to the early presence of the Church of the East throughout the Arabian peninsula, which did indeed once have CoE churches in Oman, Bahrain, Kuwait, etc.

I have also seen some photographs on flickr and other sites of buildings in Saudi Arabia which their uploaders claim are either understood to have once been churches, or are rumored (but heavily denied, of course) to have been such. While obviously the vast majority of KSA nationals and others of the region find even the idea that there once existed non-Islamic faithful and buildings in Arabia highly offensive and objectionable, it is not completely outside of the realm of possibility. Even the Qur’an records something of the legend of the (Christian) martyrs of Najran, which again Islamic sources show still hosted isolated Christian communities until about the 13th century. Of course, the modern KSA authorities do not allow any kind of research to be done in this area (people I know who have been to KSA say that you’re about as likely to be allowed to visit the area for research on Arabian Christianity as you would be to visit the Mecca on hajj as a non-Muslim, i.e., it’s absolutely forbidden).

While I do believe that Muhammad existed, a great deal of early Islamic history, including its relation to previous religions, is built on this kind of shrill denial and coverup, for lack of a better word for it.
 
While I do believe that Muhammad existed, a great deal of early Islamic history, including its relation to previous religions, is built on this kind of shrill denial and coverup, for lack of a better word for it.
This probably is closer to my own view on this subject. I am still trying to grasp on more information on what happened during early Islam in order to have a better overview of it.
 
Why does the OP spells it 'Coran"? I haven’t seen that spelling version in English.
That’s a French spelling, I was reading a French document and that’s probably why it came with me here.
 
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.
Thanks for the link. I am trying to make sense of it in light of the other documentations I got.

God bless
 
I found the video very interesting & the author absolutely raised some points that raise some serious questions…
…Islam claims Jesus was a regular man who was just a lessor Prophet & like Islam claims Jesus wasn’t crucified.
…Robert Spencer finds no historical evidence at all that Muhammad existed apart from a common title.

The point about the coins containing crosses as well as public buildings sounds very odd…
…Given that Islam claims the cross is a blasphemous sign that Jesus Himself will break when He returns.
…I’m going to buy this guys book and check the rest of it out.
According to a documentary I was watching today, it seems that:

. Early jewish-christian who split from the Church are at the origins of those core belief of Islam. They were called Judeo-nazarenes (this could be French spelling)
. They did not believe that Jesus died, instead, they believed that he had been lifted up to heaven and will come back after Jerusalem is freed from errors.
. The ‘Koran’ which is mentioned in the Koran is not the Koran itself but their own lectionary which they used to pray. The pronounciation was similar.
. It was one of their priest who dictated the original Koran to ‘Mohammad’; but this was an education or indoctrination to prepare arabs for the help to return to Jerusalem.
. arabs were reminded that they are childreen of Abrahm and had a great call in the project.
. They eventually attacked Jerusalem and took it after initial defeats. Then they build the third Temple which is what we see today as the Dome of the Rock.
. But the Messiah did not come, so great desapointment, the Judeo-nazareen were disgraced
. Also the Arabs had an empire now, so they decided to get rid of those Jews and modified the Koran to make it more an arab book. They then moved other important things which were in Jerusalem to Mecca close to the Caliphs and in Arabia. Mecca did not exist before as current stories claim, and the Qurash tribe was really in Syria than south arabia. The story was transfered to Mecca in the proccess of separation from the Jews. Also the Koran changed and started presenting Nazareen as bad while they were presented as good in the many verses. Later Mohammad was presented more and more as a real person and legends about him were turned into biographies.

This is a link which summarized the story
 
I don’t know, but it seems to me that the claim that Muhammad did not historically exist has about the same credibility as the claim that Jesus did not historically exist. 🤷
 
You’re spouting the same tired, plagarized, easily-refuted arguments as you’ve been doing since the start of your thread.

I suggest that if you really want to debate this, you find a knowledgable Muslim, preferably an 'alim (scholar) or imam. Or you could at least consult a decent Islamic book, website or tafsiir (Qur’an commentary) on the origins of Islam.
 
You’re spouting the same tired, plagarized, easily-refuted arguments as you’ve been doing since the start of your thread.

I suggest that if you really want to debate this, you find a knowledgable Muslim, preferably an 'alim (scholar) or imam. Or you could at least consult a decent Islamic book, website or tafsiir (Qur’an commentary) on the origins of Islam.
Shalom:thumbsup:
 
You’re spouting the same tired, plagarized, easily-refuted arguments as you’ve been doing since the start of your thread.

I suggest that if you really want to debate this, you find a knowledgable Muslim, preferably an 'alim (scholar) or imam. Or you could at least consult a decent Islamic book, website or tafsiir (Qur’an commentary) on the origins of Islam.
Why are you assuming that I am here to debate? I am here to discuss with anyone who may have heard similar stories and have resources. I have asked for resources, some have provided some useful links, if you don’t have anything to share, you can keep your peace.
 
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.
Did you read his book? I did and his conclusion at the end is that he thought that there was a heretical Christian preacher of monotheism but that the story later evolved into what we have today. he documents his research and looks at what historical documents there are from the actual time Mohammed supposedly lived. Robert Spencer did not say that he didn’t exist but that Mohammed later evolved.
 
Why are you assuming that I am here to debate? I am here to discuss with anyone who may have heard similar stories and have resources. I have asked for resources, some have provided some useful links, if you don’t have anything to share, you can keep your peace.
I would read Robert Spencer’s Book, “Did Mohammed really exist” Whether you agree with him or not in his conclusion, he does a very good job of research into Islamic sources themselves and all historical record AT the time that Mohammed supposedly lived. This is the misunderstanding, robert Spencer did not conclude that Mohammed did not exist but only after 100+ years later, Robert Spencer concludes that a monotheist heretical Christian preacher morphed into what we are told today it true a factual. Whether you agree with him or not, this is important to ask. There is nothing wrong in asking this question. The actualy historical records in the 600 do not even mention Mohammed and his so called air tight story. All of Robert Spencer’s book are very good. Those you dismiss him have not read him. He uses Islamic sources themselves, he has studies and know Arabic. In fact, many of his books and research he only refers to Islamic sources and explains the Arabic. Rober Spencer was recommended to me by and convert from Islam and this convert said that he was the best and most accurate source of any understanding of Islam.
 
There is absolutely nothing wrong in asking the question if Mohammed existed. This has ben asking about Jesus many times over and skepics have looked into it about Jesus and have concluded that He did. If Mohammed or at least the story as told is true then it will stand the test of inspection. Being defensive without even looking into it or trying to point to actual evidence looks more like a cover up or unwillingness to look at the truth. After reading about Mohammed and learning that he marries a 6 year old and then has sex with her at 9, has a revelation to take his daughter in law as his wife because he sees her half naked one time and want her. Mohammed recommends killing those who don’t believe in his message. He recommends that men can beat their disobedient wives. I would think that who would want to follow or believe in someone like this. Who would want to believe all of this is real and a great example to follow.
 
There is absolutely nothing wrong in asking the question if Mohammed existed. This has ben asking about Jesus many times over and skepics have looked into it about Jesus and have concluded that He did. If Mohammed or at least the story as told is true then it will stand the test of inspection. Being defensive without even looking into it or trying to point to actual evidence looks more like a cover up or unwillingness to look at the truth.
Probably not many forums and CAF certainly is courageous enough to allow topics such as these to be put up for discussion. I have no problem with this; in fact it is informative. Ultimately it is for the individuals to assess it and to make their mind accordingly. Maybe just keep it objective in order to get the most out of it.

Topic like this cuts both ways. It either strengthens the conventional belief that’s already presently available or it can debunk it.
 
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 is false. There is more historical evidence for Jesus and that has been investigated and looked into as well as the early writings of the NT, which were writen by eyewitnesses themselves to Jesus. There is extremely very little about Mohammed at the time he supposedly lived. That is what a number of these books and videos are about. He did not write down the Koran but supposedly dictated it and only after 100+ years is anything compliled together and again it is conflicted at best between the different hadiths. Also since he died where is his grave? you can point to where Jesus was buried but where is Mohammed?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top