Mohammad never existed...

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

I posted earlier in the thread that Napoleon was proven to have not existed within the lifetime of people who actually knew him. If the Emperor of France who conquered most of Europe can be proven to not exist while people who physically saw him and talked to him are still alive isn’t it logical to assume that Mohammad can also be falsely proven to have not existed over a thousand years after the fact?
 
I am making videos to discuss the origins of Islam

I just made one today with a friend of mine , and both of us are ex muslims

youtube.com/watch?v=0LokwsWXMVM

watch it of you are interested , at the end of the video I provided an inscription from south arabia where the jewish God is called muhammad or " The Praised one" 🙂
 
BrotherA said:
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.
Click to expand...
You don’t seem to have a point in making this thread. You simply made a vague statement and then expected a response or some result. You have also ignored many posts making good points regarding your statement.

A basic Google search presented me with a heap of articles on the historicity of Muhammad,
from both Islamic and non-Islamic sources. In particular Wikipedia references a Syrian text from the 630s AD which specifically references Islam and also Muhammad by name.

There are also a number of Islamic relics of Muhammad, including his footprint, thawb robe, various pieces of his beard and others.
 
Kouyate42 said:
There are also a number of Islamic relics of Muhammad, including his footprint, thawb robe, various pieces of his beard and others.
Click to expand...
This is interesting especially from the Islamic perspective. Catholics can understand this very well - they would never let any chance passed if they could get hold of relics of the saints and anything associated with Jesus. It is common, where they are available, for some churches to keep the bodies of the saints or other relics like the finger, skull or any part of the body. Some of these can be traced back to a thousand years in time. Of course stories and movies are made of unlikely relics like the spear that was used to pierce the side of Jesus or the cup used during the ‘last supper’.

I am curious about Mohammad’s foot print though. Beard (hair) can be preserved but foot print, I am curious, how did they do it?
 
oldcatholicguy said:
Robwar,

I posted earlier in the thread that Napoleon was proven to have not existed within the lifetime of people who actually knew him. If the Emperor of France who conquered most of Europe can be proven to not exist while people who physically saw him and talked to him are still alive isn’t it logical to assume that Mohammad can also be falsely proven to have not existed over a thousand years after the fact?
Click to expand...
Hi oldcatholicguy,
I appreciate your thoughts but just because this was false about Napolean and done while he was still alive and probably was politically motivated doesn’t mean that other investigations in the actual accurate historical record about the existence of a major figure in the past should not be done. These types of questions should be asked and there is nothing wrong with them. They have been asked about a lot of differenent legendary like personalities such as King Arthur etc. I actually not sure yet myself but I am reading and trying to learn and be open to looking at Mohammed and as Robert Spencer has pointed out, the record in the 600 is very very weak. Since the oldest record of Mohammed is from around 750, well after he supposedly lived, it should be suspect. When you look at the first Arabic coins from around that time, they show crosses. The verses writen in the Dome of the Rock likewise may not have been taken from the Koran which was not writen then but other material. It is these types of things that are being looked at.
peace
 
Kouyate42 said:
You don’t seem to have a point in making this thread. You simply made a vague statement and then expected a response or some result. You have also ignored many posts making good points regarding your statement.

A basic Google search presented me with a heap of articles on the historicity of Muhammad,
from both Islamic and non-Islamic sources. In particular Wikipedia references a Syrian text from the 630s AD which specifically references Islam and also Muhammad by name.

There are also a number of Islamic relics of Muhammad, including his footprint, thawb robe, various pieces of his beard and others.
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church does not use relics from Saints or Jesus to prove they existed and in fact are not required by the Catholic Church to be believed in. Relics that would have touched Jesus such as the Shroud of Turin, face cloth of Oviedo, the veil of Veronica have had scientifically been examined and studied and again the difference here is that the Catholic Church does not use any of the above to prove that Jesus existed or that they are authentic. That is left up to the believer themselves. The above mentioned relics of Mohammed don’t prove or disprove his existence here and from the looks of it have not been scientifically studied.
 
robwar said:
Hi oldcatholicguy,
I appreciate your thoughts but just because this was false about Napolean and done while he was still alive and probably was politically motivated doesn’t mean that other investigations in the actual accurate historical record about the existence of a major figure in the past should not be done. These types of questions should be asked and there is nothing wrong with them. They have been asked about a lot of differenent legendary like personalities such as King Arthur etc. I actually not sure yet myself but I am reading and trying to learn and be open to looking at Mohammed and as Robert Spencer has pointed out, the record in the 600 is very very weak. Since the oldest record of Mohammed is from around 750, well after he supposedly lived, it should be suspect. When you look at the first Arabic coins from around that time, they show crosses. The verses writen in the Dome of the Rock likewise may not have been taken from the Koran which was not writen then but other material. It is these types of things that are being looked at.
peace
Click to expand...
The books disproving Napoleon weren’t written due to politics. They were written in response to silly arguments about Jesus not existing. The authors selected Napoleon to show how idiotic “no proof= didn’t exist” is. Despite mountains of proof and living people with personal contact with the man they disproved him. They disproved the “no proof” argument by showing one can prove the non-existence of anyone even when an overwhelming amount of proof is available.
 
arabic_catholic said:
I am making videos to discuss the origins of Islam

I just made one today with a friend of mine , and both of us are ex muslims

youtube.com/watch?v=0LokwsWXMVM

watch it of you are interested , at the end of the video I provided an inscription from south arabia where the jewish God is called muhammad or " The Praised one" 🙂
Click to expand...
I hope you keep making more videos. It was very in-depth and actually I am glad that I had read Robert Spencer’s book first because without that knowledge base, I would have had a hard time following it. Very meaty stuff and continue posting your links and making videos
God Bless
 
Reuben_J said:
This is interesting especially from the Islamic perspective. Catholics can understand this very well - they would never let any chance passed if they could get hold of relics of the saints and anything associated with Jesus. It is common, where they are available, for some churches to keep the bodies of the saints or other relics like the finger, skull or any part of the body. Some of these can be traced back to a thousand years in time. Of course stories and movies are made of unlikely relics like the spear that was used to pierce the side of Jesus or the cup used during the ‘last supper’.

I am curious about Mohammad’s foot print though. Beard (hair) can be preserved but foot print, I am curious, how did they do it?
Click to expand...
It must be said that Islam tries to steer away from making a habit of collecting relics or attaching any special religious value to them, at least as far as I can tell for the purposes of avoiding shirk (worshipping other things besides Allah). Shia Islam has a tradition of venerating saints, but this is a practice highly criticized by Sunni Muslims as they see the practices of praying at saint’s tombs to be shirk, along with collecting pebbles and other items from the tombs of both saints and the Twelve Imams.

As to the footprint, it is a tradition that wherever the Prophet (saw) walked, an impression of his left foot was left behind in the rocks he had walked upon. Here is an image of one:

 
That must be a miracle of Mohammad for him to have a foot print on rock.

I must agree with Pam, it looks very strange to me for a foot print. I mean, it does not look like conventional human foot print or paw print of animal. Foot print normally leaves a marked impression where the weight is heavier on the part of the foot due to the contour of the sole.

Mohammad’s foot print as shown in the photograph - was he tip-toeing (though not likely considering the flattened sole was showing) or perhaps his feet were deformed or flat foot.

But considering it is a miracle, any possibility could happen though. I would challenge its authenticity if it’s not for a miracle.
 
The foot print again. 😉

If it dated back to the time of Mohammad or a couple of centuries in between, barring a miracle, we must be conned by someone. It looks more as if somebody was trying to draw an image of the sole of a foot rather than a foot print. If that is so, it is because that person mistakenly thought that a foot print would show an image of the sole of the foot rather than an imprint which would look different altogether.

Compared to the shroud of Turin - the image, it was found out, as if it was an imprint made on a cloth that had been wrapped around a body. That’s what I mean. Even if it was a hoax, at least it is realistic. It is not like a portrait on a flat piece of paper.🤷
 
Theft is Haraam (forbidden) according to the Quran, Sunnah [sayings of Prophet Muhammad sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allaah exalt his mention ) ] and Ijmaa’ (scholarly consensus). Allaah, the Most Exalted, has condemned this action and decreed an appropriate punishment for it. The Hadd * for a thief is to cut off the thief’s hand. Allaah Almighty Says in the Noble Quran (what means):

“[As for] the thief, the male and the female, amputate their hands in recompense for what they earned * as a deterrent [punishment] from Allaah. And Allaah is Exalted in Might and Wise.”

The majority of Muslim scholars hold to the traditional view that apostasy is punishable by death or imprisonment until repentance, at least for adult men of sound mind.

According to the traditional sources, Aisha was six or seven years old when she was betrothed to Muhammad and nine when the marriage was consummated

Keep in mind that I am not an islamaphobe. There are many good things about al-islam like the fact that they pray five times a day and worship the Abrahamic god, but I do believe muhammed was a false prophet. How can you respect someone who teaches that and does those things. then are many more examples than the one I gave. I think Allah is a beautiful, yet incomplete view of god, but I also believe Dante was right in putting him in the inferno. please don’t call me a bigot, I know that there are bad things about all the faiths, but Jesus never told you to kill apostates or had sex with a nine year old.**
 
Kouyate42 said:
It must be said that Islam tries to steer away from making a habit of collecting relics or attaching any special religious value to them, at least as far as I can tell for the purposes of avoiding shirk (worshipping other things besides Allah). Shia Islam has a tradition of venerating saints, but this is a practice highly criticized by Sunni Muslims as they see the practices of praying at saint’s tombs to be shirk, along with collecting pebbles and other items from the tombs of both saints and the Twelve Imams.

As to the footprint, it is a tradition that wherever the Prophet (saw) walked, an impression of his **left foot **was left behind in the rocks he had walked upon. Here is an image of one:

http://islamgreatreligion.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/right-footprint_jpg-copy.jpg
Click to expand...
That would be his right foot… just sayin…
 
Is it just me or is there a weird Bigfoot-hunter vibe to all this stuff about Muhammad’s supposed footprint?
 
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...
While I agree that the Church is the only true Church, but isn’t it that the Lumen Gentium (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church) says: “…the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place among these are [Muslims] who, professing hold to the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge [humankind].” also in Nostrae Aetate (Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non Christian Religions) it is quite affirmative when it says: “Upon the [Muslims] too, the Church looks with esteem. They adore one God, living and enduring, merciful and all-powerful, Maker of heaven and earth and Speaker to humanity…Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as prophet. They also honor Mary, his virgin mother, at times they call on her too, with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will give each [person] his due after raising him up. Consequently, they prize the moral life, and give worship to God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.”

Bottomline: Let’s leave the judgment to God with regards to our Non-Catholic brothers and sisters, like the Muslims.🙂
 
Samson33 said:
According to the traditional sources, Aisha was six or seven years old when she was betrothed to Muhammad and nine when the marriage was consummated
Click to expand...
This keeps getting brought up time and time again, and ignores the fact that lifespans were much shorter in 6th century Arabia, averaging 35 at best, and so this necessitating marriages much earlier than now. This was the same even in the West where until recently, the age of consent was 10-13 depending on the exact period you’re talking about.

Plus it must also be said that the hadith show that even after she was married, Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) remained at her parent’s house until she entered puberty (which is a perfectly acceptable, natural point at which to consummate a marriage to me, as it is in nature), playing with friends and her toys. Even when she did move into her new home, she still continued to have her friends in the house and to play and have fun, something which Muhammad (saw) approved of, actively encouraged and even participated in the fun.
Keep in mind that I am not an islamaphobe. There are many good things about al-islam like the fact that they pray five times a day and worship the Abrahamic god, but I do believe muhammed was a false prophet. How can you respect someone who teaches that and does those things. then are many more examples than the one I gave. I think Allah is a beautiful, yet incomplete view of god, but I also believe Dante was right in putting him in the inferno. please don’t call me a bigot, I know that there are bad things about all the faiths, but Jesus never told you to kill apostates or had sex with a nine year old.
Click to expand...
Problem is that Christianity has with it a massive list of cruelties and horriific acts upon humanity, including the killing of thousands of innocent Muslims, the expulsion of Jews from Europe and forced segregation/limitations on other Jewish populations, along with book burnings including copies of the Talmud, which the intolerant Catholic authorities saw as an insult to ‘the glory of the person of Christ’.

If anything, it is Christianity which has been the intolerant faith all through history, not Islam, which saw in the Islamic empires people of all faiths studying, living together and worshipping without problem.
 
Kouyate42 said:
This keeps getting brought up time and time again, and ignores the fact that lifespans were much shorter in 6th century Arabia, averaging 35 at best, and so this necessitating marriages much earlier than now.
Click to expand...
While it may be true that lifespan was shorter then, but don’t you think you are spicing it a bit? Mohammad managed to chuck it to a good 62 and was going on strong until the death by poisoning (according to some source). So the mean 35 probably was quite impractical.

That certainly not necessitating a lower age for marriage but rather it was cultural for children to be betrothed. I like to believe you when you say the above but by doing that, you are re-writing my understanding on this subject which has been nicely explained by the other Muslim posters here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top