evidence mohammad did not exist

niamhstokes

Professor Hired for Outreach to Muslims Delivers a JoltIslamic Theologian's Theory: It's Likely the Prophet Muhammad Never Existed. www. online.wsj.com/articles/SB122669909279629451 .

Rory28

You have opened pandoras box my good woman.

Benny_Cake

Well, that's a 6 year old story and his views don't seem to have gained much traction. There's certainly as much evidence for Muhammad as a historical figure as there is for Jesus Christ and I say that as a Christian!

Tom Dunne

niamhstokes wrote: »

Professor Hired for Outreach to Muslims Delivers a JoltIslamic Theologian's Theory: It's Likely the Prophet Muhammad Never Existed. www. online.wsj.com/articles/SB122669909279629451 .

Interesting that the Muslim scholar who made these claims is a convert to Islam, not a born Muslim. In my opinion, converts tend to be more zealous that those born into a religion. Also, the article notes that there were similar works about Judaism and Christianity (Abraham, Moses and Jesus), so nothing new there.

Finally, if you read the article, it is an opinion piece on the writer and his work. So to suggest that the article provides evidence that Mohammed never existed is to display a very selective interpretation of the piece.

Anyway, I draw your attention to item 6 on the charter:

6. This forum is not a news/link dumping ground. If you post or link to an article it should be within the objectives of the forum and you are expected to comment on it, or the thread will be locked. 


confusedquark

In fairness, if your definition of "evidence" is one man's opinion, then here is "evidence" from that very article that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) did exist

' "Of course Muhammad existed," says Tilman Nagel, a scholar... '

Sifting through the article, Kalisch says two things to back his opinion:
1) 'He has doubts, too, about the Quran. "God doesn't write books," Prof. Kalisch says.'
2) 'He was struck, he says, by the fact that the first coins bearing Muhammad's name did not appear until the late 7th century -- six decades after the religion did.'

To the first point, how can he be so sure what God would and wouldn't do?

To the second point, in civilisation terms, 60 years is not a long time. Yes putting somebody's name on a coin is a means by which of honouring them, but it by no means is something in Islam which has to be done. It's not something which was necessary from either a practical or a religious point of view, and early Muslims had other issues to focus on which were more important than coin minting. It's a far stretch to use that as proof that the prophet did not exist, and if anything, for coins to appear so soon (in civilisation terms) after his passing, would somewhat confirm his existence.

Spirogyra

Was reading about how Islam was originally compiled through an Oral tradition, and that a lot of the best 'oralists', ie people who had memorised the early Quoran, were killed in battle, so a lot of the original word of Mohammad (pbh) may have been lost or distorted. It was only written down later.....my point being that the exact life story of Mohammad (pbuh) may have been compromised, but unlike it's pretty certain he existed. Jesus as others have alluded, is quite a bit more tenuous from a historical perspective.

niamhstokes

confusedquark wrote: »

In fairness, if your definition of "evidence" is one man's opinion, then here is "evidence" from that very article that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) did exist

' "Of course Muhammad existed," says Tilman Nagel, a scholar... '

Sifting through the article, Kalisch says two things to back his opinion:
1) 'He has doubts, too, about the Quran. "God doesn't write books," Prof. Kalisch says.'
2) 'He was struck, he says, by the fact that the first coins bearing Muhammad's name did not appear until the late 7th century -- six decades after the religion did.'

To the first point, how can he be so sure what God would and wouldn't do?

To the second point, in civilisation terms, 60 years is not a long time. Yes putting somebody's name on a coin is a means by which of honouring them, but it by no means is something in Islam which has to be done. It's not something which was necessary from either a practical or a religious point of view, and early Muslims had other issues to focus on which were more important than coin minting. It's a far stretch to use that as proof that the prophet did not exist, and if anything, for coins to appear so soon (in civilisation terms) after his passing, would somewhat confirm his existence.

I think they have recently discovered a coin with Mohamad on it holding a cross. Must look into that more. Anyone know about this?

lmpulse

niamhstokes wrote: »

I think they have recently discovered a coin with Mohamad on it holding a cross. Must look into that more. Anyone know about this?

Plain bull****.

Saipanne

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Well, that's a 6 year old story and his views don't seem to have gained much traction. There's certainly as much evidence for Muhammad as a historical figure as there is for Jesus Christ and I say that as a Christian!

Very little?

padohaodha

niamhstokes wrote: »

I think they have recently discovered a coin with Mohamad on it holding a cross. Must look into that more. Anyone know about this?

Ha ha sweet Jesus can u imagine if they did.would be some crack.Muhammad with rosary beads!

muslimstudent

Muhammad (pbuh) is one of the most documented religious figures in the past 1450 odd years.

There are volumes of written traditions, numbering in the thousands, which documented his life, particularly his career as a prophet, which spanned about 25 years.

Independently, Jews and Christians, also agree that he existed.

Spirogyra

That he existed is not in question,however the accuracy of the accounts is open to question. As stated elsewhere much of the early Quaran was allegedly lost due the fact that many of those who had memorised it (it was not written down in full for 100 years) were killed in battle.....

muslimstudent

Spirogyra wrote: »

That he existed is not in question,however the accuracy of the accounts is open to question. As stated elsewhere much of the early Quaran was allegedly lost due the fact that many of those who had memorised it (it was not written down in full for 100 years) were killed in battle.....

The OP is claiming that there is evidence that Muhammad (PBUH) did not exist, so it is in question.

Several hundred were killed in the one battle and that was the precise reason that steps were taken by Uthman(RA) to commit the Qur'an which hitherto existed in the hearts of the memorisers as well as on parchments, animal skins and other materials.

The process began during the reign of Uthman (RA) which began about 2 years after Muhmmad(SAAS) died. Your assertion that it was not written down for 100 years is false.

Spirogyra

http://www.prophetofdoom.net/ Have wanted to know what people here make of this text ? it's not intended to cause tension, but it raises a lot of questions about Islam and the accuracy if the Quaran itself. I'd just like discussion. I realise that I might be banned, I'm not sure if freedom of speech is contained in the charter, but here goes. http://www.prophetofdoom.net/

muslimstudent

Spirogyra wrote: »

...... Have wanted to know what people here make of this text ? it's not intended to cause tension, but it raises a lot of questions about Islam and the accuracy if the Quaran itself. I'd just like discussion. I realise that I might be banned, I'm not sure if freedom of speech is contained in the charter, but here goes. .....

Well. Count me out of any hateful, blasphemous and Islamophobic discussions.

You just destroyed the thread mate.

Defender OF Faith

Spirogyra wrote: »

http://www.prophetofdoom.net/ Have wanted to know what people here make of this text ? it's not intended to cause tension, but it raises a lot of questions about Islam and the accuracy if the Quaran itself. I'd just like discussion. I realise that I might be banned, I'm not sure if freedom of speech is contained in the charter, but here goes. http://www.prophetofdoom.net/

Listen I don't even want to quote what is written about my prophet in this link, but a man who uses such words clearly has strong emotions against Islam, and his work will be heavily influenced by Bias,subjectivity and presentation of evidence in a way that will suit his purpose.

I highly suggest you read about Islam from a more credible source. I directed you beforehand to the biography written by Lesley Hazleton "The First Muslim: The Story of Muhammad" a non-Muslim agnostic Jew who doesn't hate or like Islam and hence her work would be highly credible and objective.

I suggest you read it and then see whether the strong hateful sentiment presented by the author of the article you gave really is true.

You see I personally think that it would be absurd and silly that a man claimed to be a prophet to simply call people to monotheism, refusing that his followers rise him to a position of divinity, he even scolds one of his companions when he says "what God wills and you will" saying angrily "You made me an equal with God?", preaching to his followers ''Do not adulate me as the Christians have adulated the Son of Mary. For I am but His slave. So say 'slave of God, and His messenger'.
Then he calls his followers to the best of manners and that the truthfulness will lead to paradise and falseness and lying will lead to fire, forbidding sins calling them to treat even the animal with mercy, exhorts them on good manners and forbidding what's evil.

This man did not obtain from this world what the emperors and kings have obtained from foods and drinks, even though he could of easily did so with his authority and the love of his followers, but most of his food was dates and water, sometimes he would tie a stone around his belly from hunger.

Then he died while his shield was mortgaged with a Jew indicating his poverty and the religion he came with continues to spread for the next 1400 years.

To you, this may be a bias sentiment of a Muslim, but not me or the 1.6 billion Muslim on earth would disagree with that & that's why I refuse to read an article that describes this man with such vulgar terms.

mossy95

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Listen I don't even want to quote what is written about my prophet in this link, but a man who uses such words clearly has strong emotions against Islam, and his work will be heavily influenced by Bias,subjectivity and presentation of evidence in a way that will suit his purpose.

I highly suggest you read about Islam from a more credible source. I directed you beforehand to the biography written by Lesley Hazleton "The First Muslim: The Story of Muhammad" a non-Muslim agnostic Jew who doesn't hate or like Islam and hence her work would be highly credible and objective.

I suggest you read it and then see whether the strong hateful sentiment presented by the author of the article you gave really is true.

You see I personally think that it would be absurd and silly that a man claimed to be a prophet to simply call people to monotheism, refusing that his followers rise him to a position of divinity, he even scolds one of his companions when he says "what God wills and you will" saying angrily "You made me an equal with God?", preaching to his followers ''Do not adulate me as the Christians have adulated the Son of Mary. For I am but His slave. So say 'slave of God, and His messenger'.
Then he calls his followers to the best of manners and that the truthfulness will lead to paradise and falseness and lying will lead to fire, forbidding sins calling them to treat even the animal with mercy, exhorts them on good manners and forbidding what's evil.

This man did not obtain from this world what the emperors and kings have obtained from foods and drinks, even though he could of easily did so with his authority and the love of his followers, but most of his food was dates and water, sometimes he would tie a stone around his belly from hunger.

Then he died while his shield was mortgaged with a Jew indicating his poverty and the religion he came with continues to spread for the next 1400 years.

To you, this may be a bias sentiment of a Muslim, but not me or the 1.6 billion Muslim on earth would disagree with that & that's why I refuse to read an article that describes this man with such vulgar terms.

How can someone be an agnostic jew?

Defender OF Faith

mossy95 wrote: »

How can someone be an agnostic jew?

Jew by ethnicity/race and agnostic as in not following Judaism

Tom Dunne

Spirogyra wrote: »

http://www.prophetofdoom.net/ Have wanted to know what people here make of this text ? it's not intended to cause tension, but it raises a lot of questions about Islam and the accuracy if the Quaran itself. I'd just like discussion. I realise that I might be banned, I'm not sure if freedom of speech is contained in the charter, but here goes. http://www.prophetofdoom.net/

It does not raise any questions about Islam, it spews out a load of bile.

You have removed any shred of credibility from your post by posting such nonsense.

Serious question - do you believe everything you read on the internet? Do you blindly accept a random stranger on the internet's opinion, purely because it supports your limited worldview, without checking facts, bias or authenticity?

looksee

I do not have any difficulty accepting that Mohammed existed, any more than I doubt Jesus existed. In spite of this I consider myself an atheist. I have no reason to doubt that either of these two men were teachers, and gathered around them followers who wrote down and interpreted what they said. I utterly fail to see what this has to do with our lives today.

People are mostly 'born into' a religion, and it is human nature to absorb and accept what they are taught as children. It is also human nature to want to validate one's own beliefs by convincing others to accept these beliefs. Most people want to be part of a societal structure that makes life easier by removing the need to decide how to behave in any particular moment or situation. This need to be like everyone else is again validated by rejecting those who do not conform. As time goes on this behaviour is codified and narrowed into a set of unchangeable beliefs, and people who see the opportunity for power encourage and dictate acceptance of this belief system.

This can create a stable (ie controlled) society, though the minutea might be unjust to individuals. The individual is of no consequence in this kind of society, a fact which is harder to accept given our current belief in the rights of the individual.

This structure of belief and behaviour starts to crumble as soon as people start,through education, to think for themselves. 'Education' in many societies has taken the form of learning the codex of their particular belief system, but once the door is opened into literacy and the exchange of ideas then people do start to think for themselves, a situation that the imams and priests and rabbis need to try and contain.

All religion is a societal device for keeping order in society and ensuring a continuity of control. God is only necessary to validate the claims of those who are doing the controlling. What better ultimate threat than that of everlasting heaven or hell, which the well conditioned minds of believers accept as fact?

katydid

looksee wrote: »

All religion is a societal device for keeping order in society and ensuring a continuity of control. God is only necessary to validate the claims of those who are doing the controlling. What better ultimate threat than that of everlasting heaven or hell, which the well conditioned minds of believers accept as fact?

I disagree. Religion is something organic that seems to emerge in most societies at some point. It takes about three generations for the formal, sometimes controlling religion to emerge, and THAT is a human construct - but the original impetus to look beyond themselves does not come from a need to control.

looksee

katydid wrote: »

I disagree. Religion is something organic that seems to emerge in most societies at some point. It takes about three generations for the formal, sometimes controlling religion to emerge, and THAT is a human construct - but the original impetus to look beyond themselves does not come from a need to control.

I completely agree with your comment Katydid, which is why I said (somewhere else :-) ) that when current forms of religion fade away, they will be replaced by something else, not necessarily better. I agree that these beliefs emerge 'naturally', I agree that the control aspect comes as the belief system becomes more entrenched. Most religion seems to start out as a result of people trying to find answers to 'life, the universe, and everything', the control and cynicism comes later.

katydid

looksee wrote: »

I completely agree with your comment Katydid, which is why I said (somewhere else :-) ) that when current forms of religion fade away, they will be replaced by something else, not necessarily better. I agree that these beliefs emerge 'naturally', I agree that the control aspect comes as the belief system becomes more entrenched. Most religion seems to start out as a result of people trying to find answers to 'life, the universe, and everything', the control and cynicism comes later.

What I would add, though, is that while "control" is a natural part of the evolution of any religion, the degree of "control" can vary from religion to religion, and even within religions. There is a tendency to blacken ALL religion and to assume it's all about control per se, and is exploitative of those who follow. That isn't fair.

There are many people involved in what we would call very "controlling" religions, who hold genuine beliefs that this control is the way to help people to reach their spiritual goal. Take the belief in Islam, for example, that has been debated elsewhere, that women have to cover up in order for men to control their desires; many of us would question that on many levels, but for many who hold that belief, they hold it genuinely and sincerely. They believe it is for the good of both genders.

Then there are other, less "controlling" religions, or let's say denominations within religions. Christianity, if one were to take it at face value, is very controlling because it contains many rules, regulations and rituals which have evolved over two thousand years. And one only has to look at a group like the Amish to see how religion can come to dominate every aspect of life and how control depends on total cooperation by members - those who don't conform are simply excluded. But you also have to look at other Christian denominations, such as Anglicanism (I only choose that because it's what I'm most familiar with) to see that in some cases it's not about control but about setting out guidelines, and giving people scope to follow them or not, according to their conscience.

Of course, that's very much dependent on society too. Anglicanism wasn't always so uncontrolling - when it was the state religion of England (well, it still is, but only nominally) centuries ago, it controlled many aspects of a person's daily life.

My point here - sorry for rambling - is that it's lazy and facile to say that religion equals control, and that that control is necessarily negative and has an ulterior motive of pacifying and manipulating people. That is certainly the case sometimes, but that is down to many factors, some societal, and not down to religion alone.

looksee

katydid wrote: »

My point here - sorry for rambling - is that it's lazy and facile to say that religion equals control, and that that control is necessarily negative and has an ulterior motive of pacifying and manipulating people. That is certainly the case sometimes, but that is down to many factors, some societal, and not down to religion alone.

I'm sorry you use the phrase 'lazy and facile'. It is in fact a considered response. I am talking about the development of religion - as people move away from Christianity they become less controlled, and at the same time, as religion is less able to control people they move away.

Islam is still at the highly controlled stage, but because in a modern world with excellent forms of communications the fundamentalist leaders can see the potential for people moving away from religion. 'Ordinary' Muslims are able to travel and be influenced, and the upsurge in efforts to control and contain members of that faith has increased.

Pretty well all the major societal structures I can think of (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) started with people announcing that they had a direct line to god, and had been given instructions on how people should behave. Who can argue with god and a powerful or charismatic leader?

I firmly believe that, while religion may start from a desire to understand, it is sadly human nature for some people to use people's need to be part of a society and to look for leadership, to control them. At a very local level you can avoid this control, especially nowadays, but overall the various major religions still have a very powerful influence on the world. Throughout history the world we live in has been largely built on and structured by religion.

katydid

looksee wrote: »

I'm sorry you use the phrase 'lazy and facile'. It is in fact a considered response. I am talking about the development of religion - as people move away from Christianity they become less controlled, and at the same time, as religion is less able to control people they move away.

Islam is still at the highly controlled stage, but because in a modern world with excellent forms of communications the fundamentalist leaders can see the potential for people moving away from religion. 'Ordinary' Muslims are able to travel and be influenced, and the upsurge in efforts to control and contain members of that faith has increased.

Pretty well all the major societal structures I can think of (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) started with people announcing that they had a direct line to god, and had been given instructions on how people should behave. Who can argue with god and a powerful or charismatic leader?

I firmly believe that, while religion may start from a desire to understand, it is sadly human nature for some people to use people's need to be part of a society and to look for leadership, to control them. At a very local level you can avoid this control, especially nowadays, but overall the various major religions still have a very powerful influence on the world. Throughout history the world we live in has been largely built on and structured by religion.

I wasn't saying that what you said was lazy of facile. I didn't read anything that made me think you had such a one-dimensional view of religion.

It's a chicken and egg situation where religion and society is concerned. Which came first? The rites and rituals of the Christianity we know, for example, is largely a construct of the Roman Empire, which took the early unconstructed church, and turned it into a state religion, using the existing structures of the state as a template for their hierarchy and organisation. If Christianity had not been taken up by Constantine in this way, where would it be today? Would it exist at all, and if so in what form? And what influence would it have on people's lives.

The same with Islam. It arose and developed in countries where many of the practices we associate with Islam (hihab/purdah) already existed, and many of these practices became an integral part of Islam.

Religions may have an influence on the world, but that is because it is so tied up with history and society, not because it is controlling per se. It suits societies to use religion to prop up its structures, and some elements of religion are quite happy to go along with that. But it is wrong to automatically blame religion as a concept; like any human institution, it is open to abuse.

People, especially in the west, are moving away from the formality of organised religion, and becoming less controlled, as you say. But the religion doesn't go away, it just adapts.