Islam Did Mohammed exist?

[Limo]

One is through Mary the other is through Joseph the legal but not biological father of Jesus

Like always, run away from facts.

Absolutely no, we're talking about after merge of the 2 genealogy. Even geanology after David contradicts with Old Testimony

 

[4x4toy]

Neither Torah nor Moses nor any other prophet told that God is 3 and El-messiah will crucified, resurrected

God is one , quit playing games .. You never answered what name was ever given for God . If you don't even know his name how could you know him ?

 

[Limo]

I have no problem , she was the mother of God . Adam and Eve was the first and Adams fall was passed down through every human father to his son , Cain , Abel and Seth were born sinners . Sin comes through the fathers not the mother . Immanuel is God with us , Jesus was human through Mary but born of incorruptible seed God the father . Prophesied from the beginning . Why do you deny the truth ?

This is not a discussion, are you breaching me ?

If answer is yes, don't waste your time with me.
I know about your religion than you know

 

[4x4toy]

Like always, run away from facts.

Absolutely no, we're talking about after merge of the 2 genealogy. Even geanology after David contradicts with Old Testimony

So you play the strain out a gnat and swallow the camel game . I find no contradictions and you can't refute anything I've said . Is Al Taqiyya in the Qu'ran ? If it is then you are a liar and call Allah a liar and I agree ..

 

[4x4toy]

This is not a discussion, are you breaching me ?

If answer is yes, don't waste your time with me.
I know about your religion than you know

Yeah you may be an expert on religion but you have no clue about God

 

[Just_a_Joe]

But, any historical claims, even if believed, may or may not exist, not just in the imagination, but in reality too. People whose worldview rests on the veracity of an historical claim inevitably want to have some historical verification, and to know what the best evidence is.

Yes. But the reality is, apart from a tiny number of hard-core historians, nobody really cares... To a believer, it's a sure fact beyond any proof. To the rest, it might be fact or fiction as they like. It doesn't really matter today. Muhammad has affected billions and billions of people in the past and living today. Therefore, he absolutely exists.

 

[Just_a_Joe]

I agree with you somehow.
There are always signs for history. If these signs are authenticated then we're certain about history known by these signs.

If somebody didn't exist, then all his production is useless.
It's really matter for believer to be certain about their sources.

The signs of Prophet Mohamed are huge that can't be ignored.

When Michael H. Hart tried to rank the most From the 100, a Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History he chose Prophet Muhammad on top for the following reasons:

• He was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular levels.
• Muhammad played a far more important role in the development of Islam than Jesus did in the development of Christianity.
• It is probable that the relative influence of Muhammad on Islam has been larger than the combined influence of Jesus Christ and St. Paul on Christianity
• Furthermore, Muhammad (unlike Jesus) was a secular as well as a religious leader. In fact, as the driving force behind the Arab conquests, he may well rank as the most influential political leader of all time.
• This unparalleled combination of secular and religious influence which I feel entitles Muhammad to be considered the most influential single figure in human history.

After that someone close his room and eyes and say Muhammad didn't exist

History is mostly (but not all of it) fiction... Even recent events have completely different interpretations, depending on who you are listening to. Everyone has their own version of history and they can present you with the surest of proof.

About Muhammad, I will repeat, in my opinion, it is a useless exercise to consider his historical veracity. I personally believe he surely was a real man whow lived and was preaching Islam first to his fellow Kuraishites and then to the rest of the Arabians. He has done great things.

Why it's absolutely not important if he existed or not, I think is because of the contents of Islam.

It is Muhammad's message that's important. It has beauty, clarity and power, it has ability to unite and inspire people. That is the only thing that matters, I think.

 

[Limo]

So you play the strain out a gnat and swallow the camel game . I find no contradictions and you can't refute anything I've said . Is Al Taqiyya in the Qu'ran ? If it is then you are a liar and call Allah a liar and I agree ..

You are Arabic and most properly closed mind Orthodox Egyptian Christian.

Allah ordered us to stop discussion when verses and Allah and insulted.

Quran 4:140 "And it has already been revealed to you in the Book (this Quran) that when you hear the Verses of Allah being denied and mocked at, then sit not with them, until they engage in a talk other than that; (but if you stayed with them) certainly in that case you would be like them. Surely, Allah will collect the hypocrites and disbelievers all together in Hell,"

 

[Limo]

History is mostly (but not all of it) fiction... Even recent events have completely different interpretations, depending on who you are listening to. Everyone has their own version of history and they can present you with the surest of proof.

About Muhammad, I will repeat, in my opinion, it is a useless exercise to consider his historical veracity. I personally believe he surely was a real man whow lived and was preaching Islam first to his fellow Kuraishites and then to the rest of the Arabians. He has done great things.

Why it's absolutely not important if he existed or not, I think is because of the contents of Islam.

It is Muhammad's message that's important. It has beauty, clarity and power, it has ability to unite and inspire people. That is the only thing that matters, I think.

That's perfect

 

[SolomonVII]

Yes. But the reality is, apart from a tiny number of hard-core historians, nobody really cares... To a believer, it's a sure fact beyond any proof. To the rest, it might be fact or fiction as they like. It doesn't really matter today. Muhammad has affected billions and billions of people in the past and living today. Therefore, he absolutely exists.

It matters, because the degree of literalism that the message itself inspires is pertinent. The more that the historicity of Mohammed may be shown to be the product of hagiography rather than factual historical evidence, the more that the literalist interpretation that inspires so many to the violence of the man can be disbelieved, through contextualization.

 

[Just_a_Joe]

It matters, because the degree of literalism that the message itself inspires is pertinent. The more that the historicity of Mohammed may be shown to be the product of hagiography rather than factual historical evidence, the more that the literalist interpretation that inspires so many to the violence of the man can be disbelieved, through contextualization.

I hear you. Well, I think it's wishful thinking. The reality is, faith doesn't work that way... If it did, there wouldn't be any faith left today, which is not the case. Not just in Islam, but Christianity or anything else.

 

[4x4toy]

You are Arabic and most properly closed mind Orthodox Egyptian Christian.

Allah ordered us to stop discussion when verses and Allah and insulted.

Quran 4:140 "And it has already been revealed to you in the Book (this Quran) that when you hear the Verses of Allah being denied and mocked at, then sit not with them, until they engage in a talk other than that; (but if you stayed with them) certainly in that case you would be like them. Surely, Allah will collect the hypocrites and disbelievers all together in Hell,"

Right in character , Your God forbids the Truth and you are bound to useless works of bondage while the True God wants us free willing to come to him because we love him being free to worship him in Spirit and Truth . Jesus did the work for us and in thanks to God I worship him as an adopted son . What work could you ever do to surpass Jesus .
I love every thing about Jesus , the way he lived , the tireless way he served others and showed us how to act and love even his enemies , even the way to die ..

You never answered my question about the angel who choked and intimidated Muhammed in the cave , completely out of the character of Gabriel the heavenly angel of God .

 

[4x4toy]

St Nicholas was real , Santa Claus is fake

 

[SolomonVII]

I hear you. Well, I think it's wishful thinking. The reality is, faith doesn't work that way... If it did, there wouldn't be any faith left today, which is not the case. Not just in Islam, but Christianity or anything else.

On the contrary, faith can and has worked that way.
This type of hyper-critical historical analysis applied to Christianity did not destroy the faith, but has served to broaden it. Those with the most simplistic, literal understandings are out the fringes of Christianity now.
The opposite of certainty when it comes to faith is not doubt as much as it is humility. People who are absolutely certain of the veracity of their claims, right down to the jot and the iota, are more willing to do violence in the name of defending that truth than those we recognize that other people who arrive at different conclusions are not therefore blasphemers as a result.

The underpinnings of a pluralistic society include a certain humility when it comes to one's own faith. When Muslim scholars stop getting thrown out of university windows, and forced to divorce their Muslim wives on account of their scholarship, then that would be a sufficient justification for these lines of inquiries in and of themselves.

 

[4x4toy]

On the contrary, faith can and has worked that way.
This type of hyper-critical historical analysis applied to Christianity did not destroy the faith, but has served to broaden it. Those with the most simplistic, literal understandings are out the fringes of Christianity now.
The opposite of certainty when it comes to faith is not doubt as much as it is humility. People who are absolutely certain of the veracity of their claims, right down to the jot and the iota, are more willing to do violence in the name of defending that truth than those we recognize that other people who arrive at different conclusions are not therefore blasphemers as a result.

The underpinnings of a pluralistic society include a certain humility when it comes to one's own faith. When Muslim scholars stop getting thrown out of university windows, and forced to divorce their Muslim wives on account of their scholarship, then that would be a sufficient justification for these lines of inquiries in and of themselves.

1 Corinthians 1:25-27

 

[Just_a_Joe]

On the contrary, faith can and has worked that way.
This type of hyper-critical historical analysis applied to Christianity did not destroy the faith, but has served to broaden it. Those with the most simplistic, literal understandings are out the fringes of Christianity now.
The opposite of certainty when it comes to faith is not doubt as much as it is humility. People who are absolutely certain of the veracity of their claims, right down to the jot and the iota, are more willing to do violence in the name of defending that truth than those we recognize that other people who arrive at different conclusions are not therefore blasphemers as a result.

The underpinnings of a pluralistic society include a certain humility when it comes to one's own faith. When Muslim scholars stop getting thrown out of university windows, and forced to divorce their Muslim wives on account of their scholarship, then that would be a sufficient justification for these lines of inquiries in and of themselves.

The absolute majority of Christians do not look at anything critically. That is the essence of faith. They belive in literal and historical Jesus. Anybody who rejects historisity of Jesus (a tiny minority) are on the fringe and in any sense do not have much influence within Christianity.

I would ascribe any reforms in theology or practice in case of any religion, mostly to the need to conform to the fundamental changes in the society and its underlying ideology. For example, the formation of Western European and later North/South American societies solely on the basis of individualism, humanism and ultimate monetary worship in the past 5-6 centuries or so.

That is what's been driving the real reforms in religions: external pressures, and not some revolutionary new thinking internally. The majority theologies - the so called traditional theologies - have been notoriousely conservative to any change.

 

[mindlight]

Abdulmalik Ibn_marwan the Caliph who built the building was Moslem

Yes I think Pressburg goes too far with this one. It is clear from the record of coins introduced in his reign as a whole that he was a Muslim introducing Muslim ideas, removing the cross symbol etc. This also colours the perspective on his reasons for building the Dome of the Rock. The fact is he built it in a style familiar and already tried across the Christian world. There are examples of this style in Jerusalem, Constantinople etc. A better explanation for this than that it was originally a church would be that he intended to affirm Islam in a context where a holy building had to look like other holy buildings in the mainly Christian context in order to possess any credibility.

• No one else said that "The building was almost definitely constructed by Christians" except for you

The chief architect was an Arab Muslim but think about it. Arab men were warriors, traders or goat herders. They did not have the skills possessed by the architects and engineers of the Byzantine empire who were mainly Christian.

• It's not true that Prophet kept the painting of El-Messiah and his mother. it's based on a rejected narrated historian

It is a rumour that has been around a while but it does not fit the generally iconoclastic approach of Muslims to have icons on the wall. This temple was also more pagan in content before the Muslims than Christian. So Pressburg does not have a very strong case here.

It does not seem to be on the walls now:

Early writing of Hadeeth was during Prophet life. There were a lot but here is a link to one of the earlis one less than 20 years of Prophet's death Sahifa Hamman B. Munabbih It's from mid-first half of Hijri calendar also "The Musannaf of `Abd al-Razzaq al-San`ani" Early Hadith writings

Scattered examples of Hadiths are one thing but the vast majority have no historical support before about 2 centuries after Mohammed.

• Mohamed محمد name is derived from the verb حمد thank. It's pure Arabic name. I reviewed the subject and found that there are 2 different coins a Byzantine one and an Islamic one there is a false mixing both as if name Mohamed is written and a cross on the same coin which is untrue.
• Actually, what is written about the name Mohamed in the page refrenced by you is a proof that the name Mohamed is written in the New and Old Testimony is referring to Mohamed not El-Messiah

Mohammed does not exist in the bible. He was not anticipated by prophecy and he fulfils no prophecies unlike Jesus.

 

[SolomonVII]

1 Corinthians 1:25-27

What conclusion, specifically about the post quoted, are we to draw from this?

 

[SolomonVII]

The absolute majority of Christians do not look at anything critically. That is the essence of faith. They belive in literal and historical Jesus. Anybody who rejects historisity of Jesus (a tiny minority) are on the fringe and in any sense do not have much influence within Christianity.

I would ascribe any reforms in theology or practice in case of any religion, mostly to the need to conform to the fundamental changes in the society and its underlying ideology. For example, the formation of Western European and later North/South American societies solely on the basis of individualism, humanism and ultimate monetary worship in the past 5-6 centuries or so.

That is what's been driving the real reforms in religions: external pressures, and not some revolutionary new thinking internally. The majority theologies - the so called traditional theologies - have been notoriousely conservative to any change.

I have never met anyone who worships money.
That is not ultimate. It is not even a real thing.

 

[Just_a_Joe]

I have never met anyone who worships money.
That is not ultimate. It is not even a real thing.

I bet you have. This is not literal worship. The modern society in much of the world today DOES worship an invented idea of ultimate value of all things called money. Even Jesus in His day encountered the same religion of mammona worship and preached strongly against it.

Most of people including the believers (not all of course) value money above all things. That is their god, king, family and friend. That is what they believe in, live for and treasure. For money, people will go into great lengths, do greatest sacrifice, spend years in sufferings and endure all kinds of trials.

They will not do 1/100th of it for their faith.

There are still societies where the concept of money does not exist. Some isolated tribes deep in rain forests or jungles. But you and I live in a society where money is everything. You can't eat, sleep, wear clothes or have church without it...