Mohammad never existed...

[Samson33]

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.

What you fail to mention is that the Babylonian Talmud mentions Jesus Explicitly as boiling in a pot of feces. It also says a Jew may kill a christian according to Talmudic law. You a right though, there is no excuse for how the west has treated Jews, but I disagree with you that Christianity is any more violent than Islam. You know what choice Muslims gave people of other faiths when they conquered their lands? Convert, Shame Tax or Die. And yes you can bring up the inquisition or the crusades, but I can also bring up the invasion of Spain, the invasion of Constantinople(and the destruction of all art within it) and of course the obvious: 9-11.

 

[johnnyjones]

A religion that comes up with a rationalization to defend it’s peculiar doctrines by saying there is a “weak” Hadith is suspect to me.

 

[BrotherA]

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"

Thank you very much for this link.
I like your presentation, It helps to understand where things came from and this is important in understand all scriptures. Even in the Bible, we are encouraged to consider the situation and the conditions in which a particular scripture was written and the historical contexts.

God bless

 

[robwar]

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.

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.

This is completely false. Islam is the intolerant faith, it has been spread by the sword. The historic record is clear. Violence is very much a part of its history.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

**Please observe Forum conduct rule #6.

Catholics must be charitable in their discussions about non-Catholic belief and practice.

**

 

[Reuben_J]

It is difficult to believe that Mohammad did not exist simply for the fact that his existence is so entrenched in our mind. No matter how likely it is to say otherwise, our mind is emotionally tied to the fact that he did exist because of the present information that we have about him and the reality of Islam as a religion and Muslims in the world today.
Perhaps for some of us who do not believe Islam as a true religion and that of course follows that Mohammad is not a true prophet, is from the fact that he is more of an earthly man rather than spiritual. He is a political person, a community leader, and a practical person (and being so what he did was not always good). Muslim posters would do well to provide more argument that he is a spiritual person and a prophet of God.

Many of Islamic traditions and belief seem to be more like fairy tale, along the line of the Arabian nights. Stories like the talking baby Jesus, making birds out of clay or tradition of the foot print of Mohammad (for example) do not support the view that Mohammad is spiritual, at least from the perspective of non-Muslims.

Personally for me the objection for Mohammad as a prophet was that he succumbed to follow the culture of the day even though he had every right to change them. He could have said that child marriage is not right, for example. He could have stayed monogamist. He could of refrain from taking war booty for profit and having women slaves as sex object, for these are what earthly men do.

 

[PaulinePresbytr]

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.

amazon.com/Did-Muhammad-Exist-Inquiry-Obscure/dp/161017061X

From the evidence here, I have concluded that it started as a arian secessionist papist movement. The quote about this “prophet” holding the keys of heaven which is the only apparent historical reference to Muhammad within 50 years of his death has imagery which is consistent with the papacy, not Islam. Secondly Islamic coins in the early caliphate had crosses on them, then the moon and the cross, then the moon alone. The getting rid of the cross was, in my estimation, an effort by the Caliphs to distinguish itself from Christianity so that during the invasions the soldiers did not convert. This effort led to the absorption of many Arabic pagan myths and practices such as the pilgrimage to Mecca, and these things were propagated by the Hadiths which were first written at this time.

 

[aragonjohn1]

Personally for me the objection for Mohammad as a prophet was that he succumbed to follow the culture of the day even though he had every right to change them. He could have said that child marriage is not right, for example. He could have stayed monogamist. He could of refrain from taking war booty for profit and having women slaves as sex object, for these are what earthly men do.

That and he claimed and proclaimed he was a prophet
Which does not make him a prophet in either the Jewish or Christian tradition
But rather a “prophet” according to many pagan traditions.

Shalom
God bless

 

[Samson33]

Posing that Mohammed, Krishna, The Buddha and yes even Jesus as not real is not important. What is important is what they mean to their followers and what their followers believe they said or did. I realize my criticism of Islam was unnecessary and undignified. Peace be upon Mohammed where ever he is and Allah hu Akbar. To all those who know about Islam you’ll know what it means.

 

[john1945]

Abraham had a Son by Hagar a servant.
His name was Ismael---- He had a Son ----
Eventualy there was a Son called Mohamid.
How does all this factor. I believe a guy called
Jesus excisted. Muslims believe Mohamid excisted.
We cannot as Christians deny others there belief
In their God.

 

[aragonjohn1]

Just because he could have existed does not mean that he isn’t real to Muslims now. Nor, does that mean he wasn’t real to many Christians, pagans, Jews etc… Back then.

The questions are did he exist?
And so if he was/was not;? >
does that mean he is/was a prophet.?

Shalom
God bless

 

[Reuben_J]

Posing that Mohammed, Krishna, The Buddha and yes even Jesus as not real is not important. What is important is what they mean to their followers and what their followers believe they said or did. I realize my criticism of Islam was unnecessary and undignified. Peace be upon Mohammed where ever he is and Allah hu Akbar. To all those who know about Islam you’ll know what it means.

Hi. We are free to state our belief and even our criticism that arises from that belief because discussion will arise from that. Similarly we are free to agree too. You have done nothing wrong in so far what you have said. It is wrong to insult and to make false presentation as if that’s what the religion you referred to actually believes.

 

[robwar]

Abraham had a Son by Hagar a servant.
His name was Ismael---- He had a Son ----
Eventualy there was a Son called Mohamid.
How does all this factor. I believe a guy called
Jesus excisted. Muslims believe Mohamid excisted.
We cannot as Christians deny others there belief
In their God.

There is nothing wrong with questioning Mohammed’s historical existence. It is not about what Muslims feel about him. This has been asked about Jesus many times and been investigated by many skeptics. Support for his actual existence from the time he is supposed to live is almost non-existent if one is willing to look at it and what is written about him come 100+ years later. It is just hard to think this way because most all of us have been conditioned to think or believe otherwise. Looking into the actual existence of larger than life figures which is not just limited to religious ones is honest. There have been investigation into King Arthur for example.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

There is nothing wrong with questioning Mohammed’s historical existence. It is not about what Muslims feel about him. This has been asked about Jesus many times and been investigated by many skeptics. Support for his actual existence from the time he is supposed to live is almost non-existent if one is willing to look at it and what is written about him come 100+ years later. It is just hard to think this way because most all of us have been conditioned to think or believe otherwise. Looking into the actual existence of larger than life figures which is not just limited to religious ones is honest. There have been investigation into King Arthur for example.

Honest would be using a realistic set of criteria with a realistic application of logic and reason as to what we should expect in regards as “proof”. I have a feeling the criteria Mr. Spencer used in disproving Mohammad would also disprove most of the prophets in the Bible, King David, Christ, and a lot of non-religious historical figures from the region (we only know the names of some of the Pharaohs of Egypt for example).

 

[robwar]

Honest would be using a realistic set of criteria with a realistic application of logic and reason as to what we should expect in regards as “proof”. I have a feeling the criteria Mr. Spencer used in disproving Mohammad would also disprove most of the prophets in the Bible, King David, Christ, and a lot of non-religious historical figures from the region (we only know the names of some of the Pharaohs of Egypt for example).

You said that “I have a feeling …” which mean to me that you have not read his book. with all do respect, I would challenge you to read his book in which he quote extensively many other sources. Likewise, there is a nice link by Arabic Catholic who is a ex-muslem which in the discussion points out a number of things that Robert Spencer was talking about in his book. The way the book was written was like a journey for the author in exploring this topic. Robert Spencer also looks at the Koran and its many inconsistencies in Arabic which is leading many to think that this was not one revelation to one man but a conglomeration of material, many of it from heretical Christian Syriac groups that were in the area in the 600s. He goes at length in his book about the Arabic language and the fact that the Koran has many words in it that no one knows what they mean or where they came from. Before any one dismisses questioning the existence of Mohammed, carefully read the sources that are raising doubts.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

You said that “I have a feeling …” which mean to me that you have not read his book. with all do respect, I would challenge you to read his book in which he quote extensively many other sources. Likewise, there is a nice link by Arabic Catholic who is a ex-muslem which in the discussion points out a number of things that Robert Spencer was talking about in his book. The way the book was written was like a journey for the author in exploring this topic. Robert Spencer also looks at the Koran and its many inconsistencies in Arabic which is leading many to think that this was not one revelation to one man but a conglomeration of material, many of it from heretical Christian Syriac groups that were in the area in the 600s. He goes at length in his book about the Arabic language and the fact that the Koran has many words in it that no one knows what they mean or where they came from. Before any one dismisses questioning the existence of Mohammed, carefully read the sources that are raising doubts.

Why should I bother reading his book when you, an apparent believer in his argument, haven’t even bothered to address my concerns about:
-the ability to falsely prove an actual person (Napoleon) didn’t exist
-his criteria also disproving the prophets in the Bible, King David, Christ (and no, there is not more historical evidence for Christ than there is for Muhammad), and non-religious historical figures

Is his book even scholarly? I looked on the internet and I couldn’t find where his work had been peer reviewed. I would assume such a ground breaking conclusion that Muhammad didn’t exist would be peer reviewed by someone.

 

[robwar]

Why should I bother reading his book when you, an apparent believer in his argument, haven’t even bothered to address my concerns about:
-the ability to falsely prove an actual person (Napoleon) didn’t exist
-his criteria also disproving the prophets in the Bible, King David, Christ (and no, there is not more historical evidence for Christ than there is for Muhammad), and non-religious historical figures

Is his book even scholarly? I looked on the internet and I couldn’t find where his work had been peer reviewed. I would assume such a ground breaking conclusion that Muhammad didn’t exist would be peer reviewed by someone.

First of all, the argument over Napoleon existence doesn’t prove or disprove anything and really does not mean anything to this discussion. Secondly, there are several books that are out there, done by skeptics that have actually looked at the question if Jesus was historical.
Books like “Who moved the Stone” and “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” are some examples. I am still exploring the points of Robert Spencer and am trying to study it more by getting and reading some of the sources that he used and mentioned. The link that Arabic Catholic shared is another angle and talk about a number of the archeological evidence from that time that Robert Spencer does talk about.
I think the best analogy I have is Santa Claus, Santa Claus is I think Danish for Saint Nicholas. Saint Nicholas was a real bishop of Myrna, known for his kindness to children and the poor. However, Saint Nicholas has now morphed into this fat elf, dressed in red, riding in a sleigh run by flying reindeer, giving presents on Christmas eve to all. That cultural image is based on one poem written in the 1822 and had nothing to do this the Bishop of Myrna whose feast day is Dec 6. What Robert Spencer concludes in his book is that there probably was a heretical warlord Arabic preacher in the 600s who has now morphed into the story of Mohammed that we have today and is taught as fact. What is fact and what is religious fiction is what is being sorted out. Yes Virginia there was a Saint Nicholas but no Virginia, there is not a Santa Claus.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

First of all, the argument over Napoleon existence doesn’t prove or disprove anything and really does not mean anything to this discussion. Secondly, there are several books that are out there, done by skeptics that have actually looked at the question if Jesus was historical.
Books like “Who moved the Stone” and “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” are some examples. I am still exploring the points of Robert Spencer and am trying to study it more by getting and reading some of the sources that he used and mentioned. The link that Arabic Catholic shared is another angle and talk about a number of the archeological evidence from that time that Robert Spencer does talk about.
I think the best analogy I have is Santa Claus, Santa Claus is I think Danish for Saint Nicholas. Saint Nicholas was a real bishop of Myrna, known for his kindness to children and the poor. However, Saint Nicholas has now morphed into this fat elf, dressed in red, riding in a sleigh run by flying reindeer, giving presents on Christmas eve to all. That cultural image is based on one poem written in the 1822 and had nothing to do this the Bishop of Myrna whose feast day is Dec 6. What Robert Spencer concludes in his book is that there probably was a heretical warlord Arabic preacher in the 600s who has now morphed into the story of Mohammed that we have today and is taught as fact. What is fact and what is religious fiction is what is being sorted out. Yes Virginia there was a Saint Nicholas but no Virginia, there is not a Santa Claus.

For a discussion that centers around proof and evidence, it’s ironic that you seem to be ignoring and rationalizing away all the proof that Mr. Spencer’s book is incorrect and fails to meet the accepted standard for what is considered to be academic.

 

[robwar]

For a discussion that centers around proof and evidence, it’s ironic that you seem to be ignoring and rationalizing away all the proof that Mr. Spencer’s book is incorrect and fails to meet the accepted standard for what is considered to be academic.

that is the same argument the mainstream news media uses against newer or internet based news sources, they are not real or respected news sources and we are. This type of argument that research is suppose to be done by imaginary certain standards set by liberal institutions is silly at best.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

that is the same argument the mainstream news media uses against newer or internet based news sources, they are not real or respected news sources and we are. This type of argument that research is suppose to be done by imaginary certain standards set by liberal institutions is silly at best.

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/10535254.jpg

Yes, professional standards are a “liberal conspiracy”. That’s why the guy in the picture above isn’t taken seriously either. Liberal academics are conspiring to keep the truth about aliens secret.