Muslims: Did Muhammad Actually Exist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ComeHome2Rome
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ComeHome2Rome said:
Yes, the Catholic Answers show “Searching for Muhammad” had for their guest: Robert Spencer who claims that there is no evidence of Mohammad’s existence. Apparently, there are no writings about him until about a century after his death, but with Jesus within the same decade there were writings about him.

catholic.com/radio/shows/…-muhammad-7264

Are you sure that (supposedly) doesn’t also belong in front of “seen his sword”? How do you know that it actually belonged to him, except that some one in Istanbul told you it was his? If it was his and he did conquer various peoples, why do they also have no record of him having been in the lands he supposedly conquered? - according to Robert Spencer.
Click to expand...
Are you serious? The second most (name removed by moderator)ortant book in Islam is the biography of Mohammad’s life, written after his death by his direct followers. How was Ali Mohammads son in-law if Mohammad is fiction? You are just looking for any way to discredit another religion which you find as a threat to Christianity
 
Hunter24 said:
Are you serious? The second most (name removed by moderator)ortant book in Islam is the biography of Mohammad’s life, written after his death by his direct followers. How was Ali Mohammads son in-law if Mohammad is fiction? You are just looking for any way to discredit another religion which you find as a threat to Christianity
Click to expand...
He’s simply reporting what he heard on the radio. Why assume the worst about his motives, which you certainly have no way of knowing? That’s just more ad hominem, which is the cancer of rational discourse.
 
How can a major religion have an imaginary teacher? This puzzles me:shrug:

MJ
 
One of the best parts of CAF is how we can start a thread with a post and it can totally change by someone saying one word. 😃

Like right now we started talking about the existence of Muhammad and then all of the sudden we talk about Homer. Two totally different religions and people of different areas.
 
Actually , there is a new book by Tom Holland (a historian) , where he says , that what we know about muhammad is so little , and islam as we know it didn’t come to existence at least until the time of al walid , so he agrees with Spencer , he even goes further to suggest that the evidence suggest that the setting of the story was south Palestine and north hijaz rather then mecca ! and many scholars agree with him .

muhammad did exist , but he was nothing like the islamic prophet , all we know about muhammad from muslims is a myth written 100s of years later

in fact , early muslim caliph like muyiah , went to Galgotha , and mary’s tomb . according to the early documents , that of course contradict Islam!
 
Robert_in_SD said:
It was an interesting show, based on a premise that has been explored by other scholars in the past, some of whom met very hasty and violent ends. The premise of the argument is that there is no contemporaneous evidence of Muhammad’s existence in any of the early writings from the period when Arabic expansion began - not within the Arab communities, and not within the lands which they conquered. The argument continues that it was only much later (perhaps 70-80 years after the period of Arab conquest began), that writings discussing “the Prophet” and his teaching began to arise, and that these writings were in fact an amalgam of other religious teachings combined to: (1) subdue the conquered populations; (2) spur on Arab expansion; and (3) unify the movement around a single aggressive expansionist religion.

But it makes me wonder: If there’s validity to the argument how come we have not heard it raised before now? But it was a very entertaining broadcast, even if not entirely convincing.

Peace,
Robert
Click to expand...
I think many people talked about it in the past , my last thread was talking about this issue and it’s impact on islamic studies

I encourage you to read books of ibn warraq , The Quest for Historical Muhammad , and Virgins ? which Virgins . so you can understand how the western Scholars of Arabic and Islam thought about this topics
 
snarflemike said:
He’s simply reporting what he heard on the radio. Why assume the worst about his motives, which you certainly have no way of knowing? That’s just more ad hominem, which is the cancer of rational discourse.
Click to expand...
Thanks. That’s true & “he” is a girl 😉

(Me, NOT Muhammad)

My motives: I think I’m still in shock over the possibility that Muhammad may not have existed and simply trying to explore to see if any Muslims have heard of this & if so, what their response/evidence may be to dispute the reported lack of evidence of his existence.
 
ComeHome2Rome said:
Me Too!
Click to expand...
I’m not saying that I don’t believe Muhammad existed, but in reply to you guyses’ question - is there any evidence Krishna ever really lived? I remember visiting a Hindu temple and the guide telling us that the story of Rama was a true one and he lived 10,000 years ago. Try backing that one up!

There’s also some debate about Buddha, not so much about whether or not he existed but whether or not there’s any truth to what’s said about him. His story has had additions, interpolations, changes to conform with a particular school’s teaching, omissions, etc. This has gone so far that we practically have no idea about the man.
 
MartinJordan said:
How can a major religion have an imaginary teacher? This puzzles me:shrug:

MJ
Click to expand...
It’s likely that the founder of Taoism was not an actual person. There is no consensus on the subject but it’s generally beleaved his attributed writings ad deads are an amalgamation of several different people over a period of time, possibly over a century.

Also BTW, Hinduism has no founder. Like Shinto and most tribal religions (with the exception of Judeism) it simply formed from previouse religions and developed as part of the larger culture.

As for Mohhamad not being real, while it is possible it would require a very unlikely conspiracy. People ofer up early christian martyrs sacrifice as proof they saw Jesus work miracles and rise, because why would they die for a religion they simply created themselves. By the same token many Musles died in the early years of Islam fighting by Mohhamads side. Why would they die in the name of a profet who they knew wasn’t real?

Lastly, any practicing Muslem will certainly beleave Mohhamad is real, they State it 5 times a day much the way Christians afirm their belief in Jesus at mass.
 
Nabooru said:
I’m not saying that I don’t believe Muhammad existed, but in reply to you guyses’ question - is there any evidence Krishna ever really lived? I remember visiting a Hindu temple and the guide telling us that the story of Rama was a true one and he lived 10,000 years ago. Try backing that one up!

There’s also some debate about Buddha, not so much about whether or not he existed but whether or not there’s any truth to what’s said about him. His story has had additions, interpolations, changes to conform with a particular school’s teaching, omissions, etc. This has gone so far that we practically have no idea about the man.
Click to expand...
I don’t think Hinduism have a particular teacher. It is more of a collective “idea” with philosophical and religious traditions native to India and has morphed into what we have today (if that didn’t make sense, I digress :o).

Meanwhile, Buddha was originally a Hindu prince. Never thought much about him to warrant much inspection. But Buddhists (I was born in a country who pride themselves of Buddhism and Hinduism) of whom the former maintain it was his teachings they follow.

MJ
 
Hunter24 said:
It’s likely that the founder of Taoism was not an actual person. There is no consensus on the subject but it’s generally beleaved his attributed writings ad deads are an amalgamation of several different people over a period of time, possibly over a century.

Also BTW, Hinduism has no founder. Like Shinto and most tribal religions (with the exception of Judeism) it simply formed from previouse religions and developed as part of the larger culture.

As for Mohhamad not being real, while it is possible it would require a very unlikely conspiracy. People ofer up early christian martyrs sacrifice as proof they saw Jesus work miracles and rise, because why would they die for a religion they simply created themselves. By the same token many Musles died in the early years of Islam fighting by Mohhamads side. Why would they die in the name of a profet who they knew wasn’t real?

Lastly, any practicing Muslem will certainly beleave Mohhamad is real, they State it 5 times a day much the way Christians afirm their belief in Jesus at mass.
Click to expand...
I’m with you. 😃 Except for the part when you talk about Jesus. The Mass (sacrifice) is for God the Father. And that through His Only Son as the perfect Sacrifice.

When I mentioned major religions. I meant major religions who pride themselves that they follow some teacher.

MJ
 
Hunter24 said:
It’s likely that the founder of Taoism was not an actual person. There is no consensus on the subject but it’s generally beleaved his attributed writings ad deads are an amalgamation of several different people over a period of time, possibly over a century.

Also BTW, Hinduism has no founder. Like Shinto and most tribal religions (with the exception of Judeism) it simply formed from previouse religions and developed as part of the larger culture.

As for Mohhamad not being real, while it is possible it would require a very unlikely conspiracy. People ofer up early christian martyrs sacrifice as proof they saw Jesus work miracles and rise, because why would they die for a religion they simply created themselves. By the same token many Musles died in the early years of Islam fighting by Mohhamads side. Why would they die in the name of a profet who they knew wasn’t real?

Lastly, any practicing Muslem will certainly beleave Mohhamad is real, they State it 5 times a day much the way Christians afirm their belief in Jesus at mass.
Click to expand...
you are missing the point my friend , there is no battles in arabia recorded. we know nothing about Muhammad from the muslims side , until ibn ishaq book (125 years after the death of muhammad and the work itself is lost , we only have ibn hisham which is editied version of ibn ishaq written 200 years after muhammad) , before that[ibn ishaq book] we have writings about muhammad and even his companions that contradict the canonical islamic story , and found in jewish and christian sources . Tom Holland , based on the quran , conclude that the setting of the story is not mecca !
 
St. John of Damascus wrote about Muhammed, he lived from around 650 to 750.
 
HelenRose said:
This argument reminds me of the arguments about whether or not men walked on the moon. Of course Mohammad existed.

You are simply fabricating a problem where there is no problem to deal with.
Click to expand...
No I’m commenting on the existing arguement. This is the point the author is making. Myself I believe should I partake in the quest to prove the existence of Mohammad it could be accomplished. Perhaps I am wrong? Its very possible that at the end of the journey we may be reduced to myth which is often the result of reality. Knights of the roundtable is a perfect example.

Nevertheless, the author is correct in his understanding that the Quran itself is not in itself suffcient to establish the existence of Mohammad. To say with a perponderance of evidence Mohammad existed we simply need outside source. Or you are reduced to Faith in the inspired content/context of the Quran. This is all I’m stating. I am looking at the authors perspective which IMHO I would question the depth of outside research.

For example there are Mosques which date to the period of Mohammad in existence today. I would have to believe that until every rock is overturned we cannot say conclusive Mohammad did not exist. In other words while I understand the authors point, I question his outside research. 🤷
 
Credo_ergo_sum said:
St. John of Damascus wrote about Muhammed, he lived from around 650 to 750.
Click to expand...
St. John wrote about muhammad at 730 that is 100 year after the death of muhammad

even his treatment of the quran as (many texts) rather then one prove Spencer point , muhammad and islam , as we know them , started with Abdulmalik bin marwan 690 . before that you can find writings that contradict the islamic story , or , were never mention at all by later islamic historians ! or they were ommited and reverse for
 
So who overwhelmed the Sassanid and Byzantine Empires in the 640’s? Arabian Pagans?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top