But the authorship and authenticity of the documents themselves are based on assumptions and/or second hand sources at best, both of which are ultimately unverifiable.
Again, as Muhammad was illiterate, it would seem that Islam fares no better than Christianity in this regard. Both rely on manuscripts and manuscripts about the manuscripts.
Their theories went led them so far as to apply their principle to Prophet Muhammad (S) himself, and even declare that he was an apostate to a certain extent.
I imagine there are a few fellows who call themselves “Muslim” who would happily collect your head if you spoke that aloud in certain parts of the traditionally Muslim world; as Muhammad is given by many Muslims to be the ideal example.
Just how many extant factions do you think there are, and even so, what exactly is your point in bringing them up when Sunni Islam is clearly the absolute majority?
My point is that Islam certainly has the same problems with division encountered by Christianity - it is no better. While the majority of Christians are Catholic, many are not.
To your first question, it really depends on how you “slice the pie”. There may be as few as 4. There may be as many as 20 or more. To label Islam as exclusively Sunni v. Shia is the same false dichotomy as labeling Christianity as Catholic v. Orthodox, even if the two comparisons include the overwhelming majority of adherents for each religion.
It was the Ottomans who conquered Constantinople, after the period that I mentioned. You have also proven that you didn’t even watch the video I linked you to.
Yes, the Ottomans and their sultan and eventual Caliph. And no, I’m not going to watch your video. If you can’t craft the argument without youtube, don’t craft the argument.
It explained that the so called offensive expeditions of the Prophet were actually in fact defensive,
A “defensive” attack. I presume you know what an oxymoron is? Maybe you confuse it with “preemptive strike”?
Muhammad (S) is not considered as aloof to the ‘Judeo-Christian’ prophets, but rather the successor of all the prophets.
Yes, quite a bold claim he makes, isn’t it? Despite his obvious plagiarisms…
I’ve always found “restoration” groups like yours to be inherently interesting. They profess belief in an all-mighty god, but insist that the true faith was corrupted and had to be restored because their god can quite readily be frustrated with failure, despite being all-mighty.
“We have it right this time!” is the slogan. In that regard, you can be lumped in with Mormons, most Evangelicals and any other restorationists that subscribe to a failed god that required a “restart” with the assistance of people like Joseph Smith, Stone and the Campbell Brothers, Ellen White, Mary Baker Eddy, the “prophet” Muhammad and many, many, many others.
Where Musa (AS) and Muhammad (S) would find the time and source materials to compose plagiarisms is beyond me.
I imagine in 60+ years of life in a region with Jewish and (mostly heretical) Christian influences available, the better question would be “How could he not have encountered such texts”.
Four centuries after their initial condemnation, which goes against your point. Again, are you purposely trying to misinterpret what I’m saying? Muslim writers wrote of Nestorians as if they were the majority Christians, because in the East, which is much larger than Europe, they were the majority Christians (their number diminished after Timur the Lame). This refutes your initial point that it took 15 centuries for Christianity to have three major communions (Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Protestantism).
Well, first off, I identified Catholicism, Orthodoxy and the Orientals. Not Protestantism. That came after the first 1500 years.
Your mis-identification of Christian concepts matches your prophet’s, as you should be comforted. He couldn’t describe the Christian trinity correctly, despite allegedly being taught directly by an angel while he was seizing in his cave.
Concerning the Nestorians, a part of their group evolved into the members of Oriental Orthodoxy. And while they were a sizeable group before Jihad decimated their numbers to those we see today, they were never a majority in Christendom.
I said the Northern Crusades. Or are you not aware that there were more Crusades than just the ones to the Holy Land?
Ah, I wasn’t sure what a Muslim meant by “northern crusades”. I don’t blame you in the subject-shift. If I claimed to follow a “religion of peace”, I’d do everything I could to obfuscate the conquest of Arabia, Persia, Egypt, the Caucasus, the rest of North Africa, Spain and the war against Christian Byzantium that took place in just its first 350 years of existence.
If you’re alluding to the Teutonic Knights, then yes. That was a largely offensive war being fought by the Holy Roman Empire against the pagan Grand Duchy of Lithuania using the knights as a proxy. That was indeed an unneeded offensive crusade that was largely unnecessary; with Orthodox Russia to the east and the Catholic Poland/HRE to the west, their eventual Christianization was inevitable without use of force.
But I think a grand comparison can be made with the opening three centuries of our respective religions:
When Islam came to your village, it was generally done by a man riding a horse and holding a sword.
When Christianity came to your village, it was generally done by a man who walked in with little more than a cross.
