What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Did Muhammad Exist? (1 Viewer)

DCThunder

Footballguy
From an Amazon.com description of a new book that was published a week or so ago:

Are jihadists dying for a fiction? Everything you thought you knew about Islam is about to change.

Did Muhammad exist?

It is a question that few have thought—or dared—to ask. Virtually everyone, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, takes for granted that the prophet of Islam lived and led in seventh-century Arabia.

But this widely accepted story begins to crumble on close examination, as Robert Spencer shows in his eye-opening new book.

In his blockbuster bestseller The Truth about Muhammad, Spencer revealed the shocking contents of the earliest Islamic biographical material about the prophet of Islam. Now, in Did Muhammad Exist?, he uncovers that material’s surprisingly shaky historical foundations. Spencer meticulously examines historical records, archaeological findings, and pioneering new scholarship to reconstruct what we can know about Muhammad, the Qur’an, and the early days of Islam. The evidence he presents challenges the most fundamental assumptions about Islam’s origins.

Did Muhammad Exist? reveals:

How the earliest biographical material about Muhammad dates from at least 125 years after his reported death

How six decades passed before the Arabian conquerors—or the people they conquered—even mentioned Muhammad, the Qur’an, or Islam

The startling evidence that the Qur’an was constructed from existing materials—including pre-Islamic Christian texts

How even Muslim scholars acknowledge that countless reports of Muhammad’s deeds were fabricated

Why a famous mosque inscription may refer not to Muhammad but, astonishingly, to Jesus

How the oldest records referring to a man named Muhammad bear little resemblance to the now-standard Islamic account of the life of the prophet

The many indications that Arabian leaders fashioned Islam for political reasons

Far from an anti-Islamic polemic, Did Muhammad Exist? is a sober but unflinching look at the origins of one of the world’s major religions. While Judaism and Christianity have been subjected to searching historical criticism for more than two centuries, Islam has never received the same treatment on any significant scale.

The real story of Muhammad and early Islam has long remained in the shadows. Robert Spencer brings it into the light at long last.

 
problem is, every time someone drew a picture of him for a missing persons add, they were killed.. i guess we'll never know :mellow:

 
Link

Author Robert Spencer, founder of the major website Jihad Watch, recently published a book with the provocative title Did Muhammad Exist?: An Inquiry into Islam’s Obscure Origins.

The foreword was written by the eminent scholar Johannes J. G. (Hans) Jansen, an Arabist and a Professor of Modern Islamic Thought at the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands until his retirement in 2008. Among his other accomplishments, he has translated the Koran into Dutch. Jansen points out that what sparse information and physical evidence we do have does not seem to confirm the traditional Islamic accounts of the sixth and seventh centuries.

In fact, archaeological findings contradict the traditional picture. Only further archaeological work in present-day Arabia and Greater Syria can shed more light on these issues. In Saudi Arabia, such excavations are forbidden, and Wahhabi hardliners have actively destroyed some sites. Furthermore, the religious authorities may not be interested in bringing to light findings that might contradict their religious views or undermine Saudi Arabia’s central status in Islam.

As Jansen states, “An Iraqi scholar, Ibn Ishaq (c. 760), wrote a book that is the basis of all biographies of Muhammad. No biographical sketches of Muhammad exist that do not depend on Ibn Ishaq. If an analysis of Ibn Ishaq’s book establishes that for whatever reason it cannot be seen as an historical source, all knowledge we possess about Muhammad evaporates. When Ibn Ishaq’s much-quoted and popular book turns out to be nothing but pious fiction, we will have to accept that it is not likely we will ever discover the truth about Muhammad.”

Moreover, a fully developed Arabic script did not yet exist at the time when the Koran was supposedly collected for the first time, which further introduces substantial sources of error. The Koran itself was probably far less stable and collected much later than Muslims believe.

Finally, the hadith collections which elaborate upon the personal example of Muhammad were developed many generations after the alleged events of his life had taken place, and are considered partially unreliable even by Muslims. It is likely that a great deal of this material was fabricated outright in a process of political and cultural struggle long after the first conquests.

Spencer does not claim to be an original scholar in these matters, but credits such individuals as Ignaz Goldziher, Theodor Nöldeke, Arthur Jeffery, Henri Lammens, Alphonse Mingana, Joseph Schacht, Aloys Sprenger and Julius Wellhausen, as well as more recent researchers such as Suliman Bashear, Patricia Crone, Volker Popp, Yehuda Nevo, Michael Cook, Ibn Warraq, Judith Koren, Ibn Rawandi, Günter Lüling, David S. Powers and John Wansbrough.

Several contemporary critical scholars — Christoph Luxenberg, for example — have been forced to write under pseudonyms due to persistent threats against their lives. This virtually never happened to scholars in Christian Europe who critically examined the Bible or the historical Jesus during the nineteenth century, but it happens frequently to those who question Islam and its traditions.

One might suspect that the main reason why many Muslims often tend to react with extreme aggression against anyone questioning their religion is because it was originally built on shaky foundations and could collapse if it is subjected to closer scrutiny.

Non-Muslim chroniclers writing at the time of the early Arabian conquests made no mention of the Koran, Islam or Muslims, and scant mention of Muhammad. The Arab conquerors themselves didn’t refer to the Koran during the first decades, quite possibly because it did not then exist in a recognizable form.

Islamic apologists love to talk about the supposedly tolerant nature of these conquests. Yet as historian Emmet Scott has demonstrated in his well-researched book Mohammed and Charlemagne Revisited, the archaeological evidence clearly indicates that the Arab conquests caused great devastation to the conquered regions. Furthermore, we must consider the possibility that Islam as we know it simply did not exist at the time of the initial conquests.

Modern scholars like Patricia Crone have questioned whether Mecca as an important trading city and center of pilgrimage truly existed by the year 600, as Islamic sources claim. Its location makes no sense if it was supposed to be located on the trade routes between the Indian Ocean and Mediterranean Europe. No non-Muslim historian mentions it in any accounts of trade from the sixth or seventh centuries. Given the centrality of Mecca in traditional history, this casts the entire canonical story of the origins of Islam into doubt.

The Koran claims to be written in clear Arabic, but even educated Arabs find parts of it hard to understand. The German philologist Gerd R. Puin, whose pioneering work is quoted by Ibn Warraq in What the Koran Really Says, states that up to a fifth of it is just incomprehensible.

Perhaps one of the reasons why the Koran stresses its Arabic nature may be, ironically, that portions of it were not originally written in Arabic at all, but in related Semitic languages.

Christoph Luxenberg has suggested that some sections of it were originally written in Syriac, a dialect of Aramaic that had long been used as a literary language in much of the Middle East and the Fertile Crescent. He demonstrates convincingly that certain puzzling Koranic verses make more sense if you read them in Syriac. The virgins that brave Muslim men are supposed to enjoy in Paradise (Koran 44:51-57, 52:17-24, 56:27-40) may not be virgins at all, but rather white raisins, or perhaps grapes. Yes, fruit.

It’s possible that some of these Christian Syriac texts were written by a heretical group that rejected the Trinity of mainstream Christianity. It’s certainly true that a few Koranic chapters as we know them are somewhat more tolerant than others, but if we believe this non-traditional reading of history, some of them were based on pre-existing Jewish or Christian texts.

In the final section of the book, Spencer sums up the findings to date. He suggests that Muhammad may have existed as a semi-legendary figure, comparable to Robin Hood, King Arthur or William Tell, whose exploits were greatly elaborated upon by later generations. Yet the traditional account of him as Islam’s founder is riddled with gaps and inconsistencies.

The Arab conquerors may have known some vague monotheism partly inspired by Christians and Jews, but in the generations and centuries after the conquests they abandoned this and developed a more militant creed that came to function as a vehicle for Arab nationalism and imperialism. Perhaps the conquests shaped Islam more than Islam shaped the conquests.

But if someone more or less invented Muhammad, wouldn’t they want to invent a more sympathetic character than the very ruthless and brutal man we see emerge from the traditional accounts? Possibly yes, but as Spencer comments, the Arabs of this age may have thought that such a ruthless character was an inspiration for conquest and empire-building.

It’s open to serious debate whether Muhammad ever existed, but I lean towards concluding that he did, at least in the vague sense of a militant Arab leader who helped unify different tribes and redirect their tribal energy outwards towards the goal of external conquest. This would not be substantially different from the way Genghis Khan managed to unify squabbling Mongolian tribes into a viable Mongol nation capable of conquering a vast empire.

The major difference is, of course, that a new religion was not built around the personality of Genghis Khan. Perhaps we should be grateful for that. Otherwise, the largest voting block at the United Nations might now have been the Organisation of Mongolian Cooperation, and the BBC and the New York Times would warn us against the dangers of Genghisophobia.

Robert Spencer possesses a special talent for presenting complex issues in a way that is accessible and understandable to an educated mainstream audience. His latest work is no exception. Did Muhammad Exist? is a competent and readable introduction to some of the most vexing riddles regarding the true birth of the creed we now know as Islam.
 
Several contemporary critical scholars — Christoph Luxenberg, for example — have been forced to write under pseudonyms due to persistent threats against their lives. This virtually never happened to scholars in Christian Europe who critically examined the Bible or the historical Jesus during the nineteenth century, but it happens frequently to those who question Islam and its traditions.

One might suspect that the main reason why many Muslims often tend to react with extreme aggression against anyone questioning their religion is because it was originally built on shaky foundations and could collapse if it is subjected to closer scrutiny.

These are two extremely important paragraphs from what CTSU posted. The first paragraph demonstrates the moral difference between Christianity and Islam which I have been arguing for some time now. Christianity generally accepts the priniciples of the western Enlightenment movement, even when those principles result in the challenge of Christianity. Islam does not accept these principles.

I partially disagree with the second paragraph. I think the reason for the agression is that Islam is a totalitarian religion in which heresy is not tolerated. What's interesting is that 1,000 years ago, Islam was the tolerant religion which invited free thought and scientific inquiry, while Christianity was intolerant and burned anyone at the stake who questioned it one iota. Thanks to historical events which are, IMO, somewhat random, the roles have reversed.

 
problem is, every time someone drew a picture of him for a missing persons add, they were killed.. i guess we'll never know :mellow:
:lmao: If Muhammad existed, and I think he did, then I think he's the most influential human ever. Very few influential people began an empire that spanned a vast area. Very few people began a religion or movement adhered to by over a billion people. Muhammad did both.
 
Even though I don't believe any of these so-called prophets were actually talking to God, I find it hard to believe that the person would simply be invented with no factual basis at all. Even if the person wasn't really talking to God there's no shortage of people claiming to be prophets and no need to invent them.

 
Even though I don't believe any of these so-called prophets were actually talking to God, I find it hard to believe that the person would simply be invented with no factual basis at all. Even if the person wasn't really talking to God there's no shortage of people claiming to be prophets and no need to invent them.
I find this argument compelling, and it's the main reason I think both Jesus and Muhammad existed (although, I have to admit, I always thought there was more definitive evidence about Muhammad.) However, the fact that they lived (if it is a fact) tells us almost nothing about their existence. Was Jesus born in a manger? Did Muhammad leap from the Dome of the Rock into Paradise? It could be that they lived but almost every detail of their lives has been fabricated by others. In the case of Jesus, I am pretty certain that much of his life story as described in the Gospels were borrowed from Hellenic legends.As regards Moses, the central figure of the Jewish religion (and therefore, a key figure in all 3 religions) there is not one shred of evidence that he ever existed.
 
A Catholic calling another religion as "fiction".

In other news Clay Aiken calls Richard Simmons a nancy-boy.

 
Even though I don't believe any of these so-called prophets were actually talking to God, I find it hard to believe that the person would simply be invented with no factual basis at all. Even if the person wasn't really talking to God there's no shortage of people claiming to be prophets and no need to invent them.
I find this argument compelling, and it's the main reason I think both Jesus and Muhammad existed (although, I have to admit, I always thought there was more definitive evidence about Muhammad.) However, the fact that they lived (if it is a fact) tells us almost nothing about their existence. Was Jesus born in a manger? Did Muhammad leap from the Dome of the Rock into Paradise? It could be that they lived but almost every detail of their lives has been fabricated by others. In the case of Jesus, I am pretty certain that much of his life story as described in the Gospels were borrowed from Hellenic legends.As regards Moses, the central figure of the Jewish religion (and therefore, a key figure in all 3 religions) there is not one shred of evidence that he ever existed.
On the other hand, with two or three exceptions (or thereabouts), there is no evidence that anyone existed 4,000 years ago.

 
problem is, every time someone drew a picture of him for a missing persons add, they were killed.. i guess we'll never know :mellow:
:lmao: If Muhammad existed, and I think he did, then I think he's the most influential human ever. Very few influential people began an empire that spanned a vast area. Very few people began a religion or movement adhered to by over a billion people. Muhammad did both.
Are you talking about Muhammed or Alexander the Great?
 
Even though I don't believe any of these so-called prophets were actually talking to God, I find it hard to believe that the person would simply be invented with no factual basis at all. Even if the person wasn't really talking to God there's no shortage of people claiming to be prophets and no need to invent them.
I find this argument compelling, and it's the main reason I think both Jesus and Muhammad existed (although, I have to admit, I always thought there was more definitive evidence about Muhammad.) However, the fact that they lived (if it is a fact) tells us almost nothing about their existence. Was Jesus born in a manger? Did Muhammad leap from the Dome of the Rock into Paradise? It could be that they lived but almost every detail of their lives has been fabricated by others. In the case of Jesus, I am pretty certain that much of his life story as described in the Gospels were borrowed from Hellenic legends.As regards Moses, the central figure of the Jewish religion (and therefore, a key figure in all 3 religions) there is not one shred of evidence that he ever existed.
On the other hand, with two or three exceptions (or thereabouts), there is no evidence that anyone existed 4,000 years ago.
I have evidence - when do you want to meet my mother in law?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
problem is, every time someone drew a picture of him for a missing persons add, they were killed.. i guess we'll never know :mellow:
:lmao: If Muhammad existed, and I think he did, then I think he's the most influential human ever. Very few influential people began an empire that spanned a vast area. Very few people began a religion or movement adhered to by over a billion people. Muhammad did both.
Are you talking about Muhammed or Alexander the Great?
Muhammad
 
Even though I don't believe any of these so-called prophets were actually talking to God, I find it hard to believe that the person would simply be invented with no factual basis at all. Even if the person wasn't really talking to God there's no shortage of people claiming to be prophets and no need to invent them.
I find this argument compelling, and it's the main reason I think both Jesus and Muhammad existed (although, I have to admit, I always thought there was more definitive evidence about Muhammad.) However, the fact that they lived (if it is a fact) tells us almost nothing about their existence. Was Jesus born in a manger? Did Muhammad leap from the Dome of the Rock into Paradise? It could be that they lived but almost every detail of their lives has been fabricated by others. In the case of Jesus, I am pretty certain that much of his life story as described in the Gospels were borrowed from Hellenic legends.As regards Moses, the central figure of the Jewish religion (and therefore, a key figure in all 3 religions) there is not one shred of evidence that he ever existed.
On the other hand, with two or three exceptions (or thereabouts), there is no evidence that anyone existed 4,000 years ago.
WAT
 
Even though I don't believe any of these so-called prophets were actually talking to God, I find it hard to believe that the person would simply be invented with no factual basis at all. Even if the person wasn't really talking to God there's no shortage of people claiming to be prophets and no need to invent them.
I find this argument compelling, and it's the main reason I think both Jesus and Muhammad existed (although, I have to admit, I always thought there was more definitive evidence about Muhammad.) However, the fact that they lived (if it is a fact) tells us almost nothing about their existence. Was Jesus born in a manger? Did Muhammad leap from the Dome of the Rock into Paradise? It could be that they lived but almost every detail of their lives has been fabricated by others. In the case of Jesus, I am pretty certain that much of his life story as described in the Gospels were borrowed from Hellenic legends.As regards Moses, the central figure of the Jewish religion (and therefore, a key figure in all 3 religions) there is not one shred of evidence that he ever existed.
On the other hand, with two or three exceptions (or thereabouts), there is no evidence that anyone existed 4,000 years ago.
mor, plz
 
Even though I don't believe any of these so-called prophets were actually talking to God, I find it hard to believe that the person would simply be invented with no factual basis at all. Even if the person wasn't really talking to God there's no shortage of people claiming to be prophets and no need to invent them.
I find this argument compelling, and it's the main reason I think both Jesus and Muhammad existed (although, I have to admit, I always thought there was more definitive evidence about Muhammad.) However, the fact that they lived (if it is a fact) tells us almost nothing about their existence. Was Jesus born in a manger? Did Muhammad leap from the Dome of the Rock into Paradise? It could be that they lived but almost every detail of their lives has been fabricated by others. In the case of Jesus, I am pretty certain that much of his life story as described in the Gospels were borrowed from Hellenic legends.As regards Moses, the central figure of the Jewish religion (and therefore, a key figure in all 3 religions) there is not one shred of evidence that he ever existed.
On the other hand, with two or three exceptions (or thereabouts), there is no evidence that anyone existed 4,000 years ago.
mor, plz
You'll need to provide names and addresses. Oh, there were plenty of people, all right; about 100 million. But evidence for a particular individual is fairly scanty.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If he didn't exist what caused the huge change in science and math in the arab world?
Muslims countries were actually leaders in science until the Mongols sacked Baghdad in 1258. A better question is how science would have developed in the Middle East had that not happened.
The invasion left Baghdad in a state of total destruction. Estimates of the number of inhabitants massacred during the invasion range from 100,000 to 1,000,000. The city was sacked and burned. Even the libraries of Baghdad, including the House of Wisdom, were not safe from the attacks of the Ilkhanate forces, who totally destroyed the libraries and used the invaluable books to make a passage across Tigris River[citation needed]. As a result, Baghdad remained depopulated and in ruins for several centuries, and the event is widely regarded as the end of the Islamic Golden Age.[
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If he didn't exist then the people inventing the religion did a very poor job. From the moment of his death there was controversy over who should be the new leader, which created the rift between the Shia and Sunni.

In fact, if you're making it up how do you get two different groups to follow along?

 
Year of the ElephantThe Year of the Elephant (Arabic: عام الفيل‎, ʿĀmu l-Fīl) is the name in Islamic history for the year approximately equating to 570 CE. According to Islamic tradition, it was in this year that Muhammad was born.[1] The name is derived from an event said to have occurred at Mecca: Abraha, the Christian ruler of Yemen, which was subject to the Kingdom of Aksum of Ethiopia,[2][3] marched upon the Kaaba with a large army, which included one or more war elephants, intending to demolish it. However, the lead elephant, known as Mahmud,[4] is said to have stopped at the boundary around Mecca, and refused to enter. A natural explanation for the event proposes that the tale of the elephant army is allegorical for an epidemic of smallpox that spared the residents of Mecca, and thus Muhammad.[5] The year came to be known as the Year of the Elephant, beginning a trend for reckoning the years in the Arabian Peninsula used until it was replaced with the Islamic calendar during the rule of Umar.

Recent discoveries in southern Arabia suggest that Year of the Elephant may have been 569 or 568, as the Sasanian Empire overthrew the Axumite- and Byzantine-affiliated regimes in Yemen around 570.[6] However, historians today believe that this event occurred at least a decade prior to the birth of Muhammad.[7][verification needed]

The year is also recorded as that of the birth of Ammar ibn Yasir.

EventsAccording to early Islamic historians such as Ibn Ishaq, in honor of his ally, Negus Abraha built a great church at Sana'a known as al-Qullays, a loanword borrowed from Greek: εκκλησία "church".

Al-Qullays gained widespread fame, even gaining the notice of the Byzantine Empire.[1] The pagan Arab people of the time had their own center of religious worship and pilgrimage in Mecca, the Kaaba.[1] Abraha attempted to divert their pilgrimage to al-Qullays and appointed a man named Muhammad ibn Khuza'i to Mecca and Tihamah as a king with a message that al-Qullays was both much better than other houses of worship and purer, having not been defiled by the housing of idols.[1]

Ibn Ishaq's prophetic biography states:

“ With Abraha there were some Arabs who had come to seek his bounty, among them Muhammad ibn Khuza`i ibn Khuzaba al-Dhakwani, al-Sulami, with a number of his tribesmen including a brother of his called Qays. While they were with him a feast of Abraha occurred and he sent to invite them to the feast. Now he used to eat an animal's ####, so when the invitation was brought they said, "By God, if we eat this the Arabs will hold it against us as long as we live." Thereupon Muhammad ibn Khuza'i got up and went to Abraha and said, "O King, this is a festival of ours in which we eat only the loins and shoulders." Abraha replied that he would send them what they liked, because his sole purpose in inviting them was to show that he honoured them.

Then he crowned Muhammad ibn Khuza'i, and made him emir of Mudhar, and ordered him to go among the people to invite them to pilgrimage at his cathedral which he had built. When Muhammad ibn Khuza'i got as far as the land of Kinana, the people of the lowland, knowing what he had come for, sent a man of Hudhayl called ʿUrwa bin Hayyad al-Milasi, who shot him with an arrow, killing him. His brother Qays who was with him fled to Abraha and told him the news, which increased his rage and fury and he swore to raid the Kinana tribe and destroy the temple.

” Ibn Ishaq further states that one of the men of the Quraysh tribe was angered by this, and going to Sana'a, slipped into the church at night and defiled it; it is widely assumed that they did so by defecating in it.

Abraha, incensed, launched an expedition of forty thousand men against the Kaaba at Mecca, led by a white elephant named Mahmud[8] (and possibly with other elephants - some accounts state there were several elephants, or even as many as eight)[1][6]) in order to destroy the Kaaba. Several Arab tribes attempted to fight him on the way, but were defeated.

When news of the advance of Abraha's army came, the Arab tribes of the Quraysh, Banu Kinanah, Banu Khuza'a and Banu Hudhayl united in defense of the Kaaba. A man from the Himyarite Kingdom was sent by Abraha to advise them that Abraha only wished to demolish the Kaaba and if they resisted, they would be crushed. Abdul Muttalib told the Meccans to seek refuge in the hills while he with some leading members of the Quraysh remained within the precincts of the Kaaba. Abraha sent a dispatch inviting Abdul-Muttalib to meet with Abraha and discuss matters. When Abdul-Muttalib left the meeting he was heard saying, "The Owner of this House is its Defender, and I am sure He will save it from the attack of the adversaries and will not dishonor the servants of His House."

The reference to the story in Qur'an is rather short. According to the al-Fil sura, the next day, [as Abraha prepared to enter the city], a dark cloud of small birds appeared. The birds carried small rocks in their beaks, and bombarded the Ethiopian forces and smashed them like "eaten straw".

Other sourcesThis event is referred to in the Quran in sura 105, al-Fil "The Elephant", and is discussed in its related tafsir.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_of_the_Elephant

 
Recent discoveries in southern Arabia suggest that Year of the Elephant may have been 569 or 568, as the Sasanian Empire overthrew the Axumite- and Byzantine-affiliated regimes in Yemen around 570.[6] However, historians today believe that this event occurred at least a decade prior to the birth of Muhammad.[7][verification needed]

The year is also recorded as that of the birth of Ammar ibn Yasir.
It's been mentioned elsewhere but it's probably pretty key that Mohammed and his tribe appeared, grew and expanded just as the Byzantine Empire was experiencing a contraction alongside the post fall of the Roman Empire.

There was a power vacuum there and they, and later the Quraysh especially, filled it.

 
what a shock that a prophet-based religion created by power-hungry men to gain power might have been fabricated. i see a pattern developing.

 
Yes, born January 17, 1943. Known as 'The Greatest' and 'The People's Champion', he is now 73. A 4-time world heavyweight champion, his record was 56-5 with 37 KO's.

 
What's interesting is that 1,000 years ago, Islam was the tolerant religion which invited free thought and scientific inquiry, while Christianity was intolerant and burned anyone at the stake who questioned it one iota. Thanks to historical events which are, IMO, somewhat random, the roles have reversed.
your grasp of history is astounding.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top