Islam Did Mohammed exist?

[fatboys]

Allah sends angel Gabriel to Mohamed to tell him Quran.

How do you know that it really happened other than we have the Quran

 

[4x4toy]

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

I think it agrees with your post

 

[Limo]

-

I witness that these responses are logically fair

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.

True, He is affected with the style of religious houses at that time especially he was originally a Jew from Jerusalem who chose Islam

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.

May be in the begining but Arabs started soon to read and translate books from all civilizations Greek, Roman, Persian, Indian, Pharaohs,,, then started to innovate.
They get into all types of sciences and created more like Algebra (Arabic ward) and Astronomy added to old sciences like medicine and Chemistry (Arabic ward)
Even the numeric signs that all world is using is an Arabic invention.
The Zero is an Arabic invention
and many many things

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:

True.
By any mean icons and painting life objects is Haram in Islam.

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

No there are more than these scattered examples. These examples are what I found online.
Companion Abdulaah ibn Amr ibn Al-aas has written a book during Prophet's life.
Alzohary has written a book at the end of the first century.
Many others writings we can find it as references but the original copies get lost.
Let me tell you something. Arabs were relaying 100 percent on memory before Islam. They recorded what they need in poetry.
Only when Prophet came, he encourages many people to learn reading and writing.
He was releasing prisoners of war if they tought 10 Muslims.
He asked Osama Ibn Zayed to learn Syriac to be able to write letters to Emperors and Kings.

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

There are in Torah and New Testimony but I know you're not accepting our interpretation.
(no need to discuss as it has been extensively discussed in researches and debates) I see the most strong one in Gospels is the Paraclete (Gr. παράκλητος, Lat. paracletus) that can be Ahmed (another name of Muhammad). Allah told us in Quran that El-Messiah said that Allah will send a prophet names "Ahmed"

 

[Limo]

How do you know that it really happened other than we have the Quran

• Not the Quran itself as a book but it's contents (details below)
• We've eye witnesses who see Gabriel in a human shape
• There are evidences when Gabriel gave hands and told Prophet what is going to happen in next minutes, hours, days, years,,,

Quran is not like any other book. It's a perfect book from the Almighty the Creator.
It has many things that nobody know except for the Creator. a long list of signs from all science. Many of these signs have been discovered lately. Some historical facts that have been discovered later. Some future incidents that have happened after Prophet death by years, tens of years, centuries
Till date we discover many things in Quran.
Quran is challenging people to find errors.
Allah challenged humans and Jenni to write a book like it, then made it easy to write 10 Surahs, then challenge to write one Surah.
Quran didn't change even in one letter as per Allah promise.

This is why we people who didn't see Prophet or Gabriel and came later believe that Quran is not a human made book, It's from Almighty the Creator.

 

[fatboys]

• Not the Quran itself as a book but it's contents (details below)
• We've eye witnesses who see Gabriel in a human shape
• There are evidences when Gabriel gave hands and told Prophet what is going to happen in next minutes, hours, days, years,,,

Quran is not like any other book. It's a perfect book from the Almighty the Creator.
It has many things that nobody know except for the Creator. a long list of signs from all science. Many of these signs have been discovered lately. Some historical facts that have been discovered later. Some future incidents that have happened after Prophet death by years, tens of years, centuries
Till date we discover many things in Quran.
Quran is challenging people to find errors.
Allah challenged humans and Jenni to write a book like it, then made it easy to write 10 Surahs, then challenge to write one Surah.
Quran didn't change even in one letter as per Allah promise.

This is why we people who didn't see Prophet or Gabriel and came later believe that Quran is not a human made book, It's from Almighty the Creator.

Interesting. So are there originals writings? Man can make mistakes all the time. This is why the bible was never to be considered perfect. Have there been mistakes made by those who copied it?

 

[SolomonVII]

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...

Having material needs and a complex economy is not the same thing as worshiping money.
Nobody believes in money as if money were a god. That is what worshiping implies.

 

[mindlight]

True, He is affected with the style of religious houses at that time especially he was originally a Jew from Jerusalem who chose Islam

The reign of Abd Al Malik ibn Marwan seems entirely significant to the development of the story about Mohammed but not in the way that Pressburg seems to have understood. Al Malik was a Caliph who effectively by war, architecture and coinage forged the first Islamic Caliphate and used the name of Mohammed to consolidate his power and distinguish his Caliphate from the Byzantines and to elevate it above rebellious Arab tribesmen. Before him the name of Mohammed was associated with a bunch of what were regarded as heretical Arabs in the desert. After him a more international Islam that united both Arabs and non Arabs into the same Caliphate was possible. He besieged and took Mecca with 10000 Syrian troops for instance. The evidence includes the fact that before him there were no coins with the name of Mohammed on them and references to Mohammed were more subdued in the literature of the time. The collection of Hadiths did not really begin in any kind of organised way until his reign and appears to have served to legitimate his reign by associating himself with the name of a prophet whose story itself was developed to the status of legend.

https://futiledemocracy.wordpress.com/2013/08/08/the-search-for-muhammad-abd-al-malik-ibn-marwan/

May be in the begining but Arabs started soon to read and translate books from all civilizations Greek, Roman, Persian, Indian, Pharaohs,,, then started to innovate.
They get into all types of sciences and created more like Algebra (Arabic ward) and Astronomy added to old sciences like medicine and Chemistry (Arabic ward)
Even the numeric signs that all world is using is an Arabic invention.
The Zero is an Arabic invention
and many many things

Zero was invented in India. Arabs got a lot of their learning from the Greeks and Hindus by translating their texts and then comparing them. Arabs generally followed the Greek Ptolemaic Heliocentric model of the universe although they also added there own observations to the mix. The real founder of modern observational astronomy is Galileo. It was Greeks who worked out the earth was a sphere etc. Algebra can be traced to the Babylonians and the Greeks.

By any mean icons and painting life objects is Haram in Islam.

Which makes me wonder whether Al Malik was a true Muslim or a man of power using a development of Islam to build up his own Caliphate. On his coins for instance is an image of himself holding a sword. Such iconic representations of his rule would be regarded as blasphemous by most modern Muslims. The Saana Quran dates from his reign and XRays have revealed that there were 2 contradictory attempts at writing down the text on the same parchment indicating a fluidity to the development of the Quran that contradicts the idea that it was simply handed down from on high. It was as though the religion was developed to fit his own desire to build an empire.

No there are more than these scattered examples. These examples are what I found online.
Companion Abdulaah ibn Amr ibn Al-aas has written a book during Prophet's life.
Alzohary has written a book at the end of the first century.
Many others writings we can find it as references but the original copies get lost.
Let me tell you something. Arabs were relaying 100 percent on memory before Islam. They recorded what they need in poetry.
Only when Prophet came, he encourages many people to learn reading and writing.
He was releasing prisoners of war if they tought 10 Muslims.
He asked Osama Ibn Zayed to learn Syriac to be able to write letters to Emperors and Kings.

The earliest complete manuscript is some 200 years after the event.

https://fayezthezealot.wordpress.com/2016/08/24/earliest-hadith-manuscript-tradition-of-muhammad/

There are in Torah and New Testimony but I know you're not accepting our interpretation.
(no need to discuss as it has been extensively discussed in researches and debates) I see the most strong one in Gospels is the Paraclete (Gr. παράκλητος, Lat. paracletus) that can be Ahmed (another name of Muhammad). Allah told us in Quran that El-Messiah said that Allah will send a prophet names "Ahmed"

The term Paraclete refers to the Holy Spirit (means literally advocate / helper).

Muslims refer to John 14:16

And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever.

But Jesus words are fulfilled at Pentecost with the sending of the Holy Spirit. Mohammed would quite honestly be a big disappointment by comparison to God Himself with us by His Spirit. Also in the context of Christian theology and the scriptures themselves it is clear that John is referring to the Holy Spirit here and not a future man or prophet. Jesus fulfilled the words of Old Testament prophets of which the greatest was John the Baptist. Mohammed did not really make prophecies (well ones that demonstrably came true). His words show more affinity to the pre Christian Jewish Old Testament prophets but without the predictive elements. So from a Christian point of view if this verse talks about Mohammed it would be a major step backwards and really would negate the point of God coming in the flesh in the person of the Christ.

 

[Limo]

Interesting. So are there originals writings? Man can make mistakes all the time. This is why the bible was never to be considered perfect. Have there been mistakes made by those who copied it?

Yes, we've original writings that are not touched same as all trusted copies on earth.
There were many incomplete copies with many companions in Prophet's life.
After one year of Prophet's death , companion formulated a committee which presented their results to all Muslims till they created the complete written copy.
After 12-13 years of Prophet's death, Caliphate Utahan formulated another committee who has created 6 copies from the original one.

Nevertheless, till date some people keep narrators names till Prophet Mohamed. So, people keep from whom they've learnt Quran.

Till date, we find no single artifact contradicts with the original copies.

Just try to publish a copy with a change down to level of a single letter, and see it's going to be discovered faster than you recognize it. By the way, there were several trials which have been discovered.

 

[Limo]

The reign of Abd Al Malik ibn Marwan seems entirely significant to the development of the story about Mohammed but not in the way that Pressburg seems to have understood. Al Malik was a Caliph who effectively by war, architecture and coinage forged the first Islamic Caliphate and used the name of Mohammed to consolidate his power and distinguish his Caliphate from the Byzantines and to elevate it above rebellious Arab tribesmen. Before him the name of Mohammed was associated with a bunch of what were regarded as heretical Arabs in the desert. After him a more international Islam that united both Arabs and non Arabs into the same Caliphate was possible. He besieged and took Mecca with 10000 Syrian troops for instance. The evidence includes the fact that before him there were no coins with the name of Mohammed on them and references to Mohammed were more subdued in the literature of the time. The collection of Hadiths did not really begin in any kind of organised way until his reign and appears to have served to legitimate his reign by associating himself with the name of a prophet whose story itself was developed to the status of legend.

https://futiledemocracy.wordpress.com/2013/08/08/the-search-for-muhammad-abd-al-malik-ibn-marwan/



Zero was invented in India. Arabs got a lot of their learning from the Greeks and Hindus by translating their texts and then comparing them. Arabs generally followed the Greek Ptolemaic Heliocentric model of the universe although they also added there own observations to the mix. The real founder of modern observational astronomy is Galileo. It was Greeks who worked out the earth was a sphere etc. Algebra can be traced to the Babylonians and the Greeks.



Which makes me wonder whether Al Malik was a true Muslim or a man of power using a development of Islam to build up his own Caliphate. On his coins for instance is an image of himself holding a sword. Such iconic representations of his rule would be regarded as blasphemous by most modern Muslims. The Saana Quran dates from his reign and XRays have revealed that there were 2 contradictory attempts at writing down the text on the same parchment indicating a fluidity to the development of the Quran that contradicts the idea that it was simply handed down from on high. It was as though the religion was developed to fit his own desire to build an empire.



The earliest complete manuscript is some 200 years after the event.

https://fayezthezealot.wordpress.com/2016/08/24/earliest-hadith-manuscript-tradition-of-muhammad/



The term Paraclete refers to the Holy Spirit (means literally advocate / helper).

Muslims refer to John 14:16

And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever.

But Jesus words are fulfilled at Pentecost with the sending of the Holy Spirit. Mohammed would quite honestly be a big disappointment by comparison to God Himself with us by His Spirit. Also in the context of Christian theology and the scriptures themselves it is clear that John is referring to the Holy Spirit here and not a future man or prophet. Jesus fulfilled the words of Old Testament prophets of which the greatest was John the Baptist. Mohammed did not really make prophecies (well ones that demonstrably came true). His words show more affinity to the pre Christian Jewish Old Testament prophets but without the predictive elements. So from a Christian point of view if this verse talks about Mohammed it would be a major step backwards and really would negate the point of God coming in the flesh in the person of the Christ.

What I can say ?
You're 2 persons using the same account
First person comments in #117 answers a lot of Second person comments in #127
You can sit and talk to each other, you'll get answers to some comments

 

[mindlight]

What I can say ?
You're 2 persons using the same account
First person comments in #117 answers a lot of Second person comments in #127
You can sit and talk to each other, you'll get answers to some comments

The purpose of this OP was to come to an honest view of the evidence regarding the existence of Mohammed. Post #117 basically said that Pressburg went too far with some of his points e.g. about the Christian nature of early Caliphs and mosques. Developing on that theme in #127 I took a closer look at Al Malik and found a better reason and motive for the fabrication of the exaggerated myth of Mohammed from the life of the actual man. There is no contradiction here but there is a development of thinking.

 

[SolomonVII]

The communication problem in this thread revolves around the fact that historical questions cannot be properly addressed with theology.

 

[SolomonVII]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122669909279629451

In private, he was moving in a different direction. He devoured works questioning the existence of Abraham, Moses and Jesus. Then "I said to myself: You've dealt with Christianity and Judaism but what about your own religion? Can you take it for granted that Muhammad existed?"

He had no doubts at first, but slowly they emerged. 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.

He traded ideas with some scholars in Saarbrücken who in recent years have been pushing the idea of Muhammad's nonexistence. They claim that "Muhammad" wasn't the name of a person but a title, and that Islam began as a Christian heresy.

Prof. Kalisch didn't buy all of this. Contributing last year to a book on Islam, he weighed the odds and called Muhammad's existence "more probable than not." By early this year, though, his thinking had shifted. "The more I read, the historical person at the root of the whole thing became more and more improbable," he says.

He has doubts, too, about the Quran. "God doesn't write books," Prof. Kalisch says.​

 

[Just_a_Joe]

Having material needs and a complex economy is not the same thing as worshiping money.
Nobody believes in money as if money were a god. That is what worshiping implies.

OK.

Jesus said you can't serve two masters simultaneously, God and mammona. So He did think it's possible. Again, by "worshiping" I don't mean prostrating on your knees or singing hymns or whatever. It's a figurative expression.

"Complex economy", but the foundation of it is quite simple. Money-money-money.

 

[SolomonVII]

OK.

Jesus said you can't serve two masters simultaneously, God and mammona. So He did think it's possible. Again, by "worshiping" I don't mean prostrating on your knees or singing hymns or whatever. It's a figurative expression.

"Complex economy", but the foundation of it is quite simple. Money-money-money.

Worshipers of Mammon literally did prostrate the knee before him. Their worship of him was not figurative, but literal.

The foundations of capitalism are not all that simple either. Capitalism is based in profiting through serving the interests and the needs and wants of the other. Charity is therefore at the root of capitalism, not greed. Those who are able to provide the masses with what they need and want at the best cost, profit the most. It is a service model that neither creates poverty, nor solves it, but nevertheless has been able to lift more people out of poverty than any other system so far.

But, those who lose God, and are therefore subject to rejecting the Judeo-Christian roots of the modern Western economy, have reduced themselves to being simplistic.
Even then, they do not worship money. Money is merely all that they have left.

 

[Just_a_Joe]

Even then, they do not worship money. Money is merely all that they have left.

They don't worship as treating it as deity. It was a figurative form of speech , meaning, it's their God, or the most important thing in life. Number one priority. The purpose of living and the thing they love most.

In any case, that wasn't the main focus of what I was saying in that post. I was talking about religions being slaves to the outside societies.

 

[SolomonVII]

They don't worship as treating it as deity. It was a figurative form of speech , meaning, it's their God, or the most important thing in life. Number one priority. The purpose of living and the thing they love most.

In any case, that wasn't the main focus of what I was saying in that post. I was talking about religions being slaves to the outside societies.

Those who argue for idea that Mohammed was not an historic figure indeed do recognize that the primary impetus for Islam lies not in the Koran or in a charismatic religious leader with a vision from God, but comes from the fact that the Arab maurauders were able to defeat the two existing empires of the Middle East in a blink of the eye, and had a new empire on their hands.
That is the case here; religion here was the product of the society that arose. Whether or not Mohammed existed, he had to be invented in order to give moral justification for the vast new territory that Arabs found themselves in control of.

Suffice it to say that the relationship between Christianity and society followed a completely different trajectory. Far from being a slave to the Roman empire, or anything else that arose from that empire, Christianity has been transformative.
The case with capitalism that I have outlined is but a case in point.

 

[Just_a_Joe]

Those who argue for idea that Mohammed was not an historic figure indeed do recognize that the primary impetus for Islam lies not in the Koran or in a charismatic religious leader with a vision from God, but comes from the fact that the Arab maurauders were able to defeat the two existing empires of the Middle East in a blink of the eye, and had a new empire on their hands.
That is the case here; religion here was the product of the society that arose. Whether or not Mohammed existed, he had to be invented in order to give moral justification for the vast new territory that Arabs found themselves in control of.

Suffice it to say that the relationship between Christianity and society followed a completely different trajectory. Far from being a slave to the Roman empire, or anything else that arose from that empire, Christianity has been transformative.
The case with capitalism that I have outlined is but a case in point.

I fully understand where you're coming from. I don't think I or anybody else is capable to change your opinion even one yota today, because your convictions are strong. Any true religious believer, or scientific believer, or atheistic believer is like that, no difference. I don't know weather it's good or bad, I'm no judge here.

Let's forget about the origins of religion for the moment, it's ancient history after all. Anyone, you or I, can twist it any way we like and be confident we are right, because there is no way to disprove it. No living witnesses. Anything goes, the wildest of wildest theories may be made to sound correct to yourself or somebody else with enough eloquence. "Paroles, paroles" like they say en Français.

You are wrong about Islam and about Christianity. To continue my thought, all religions without any exceptions conform. It can be seen in Islam very well, it can be seen in Christianity very well, it can be seen in any other religious or areligious ideology of any kind. I talk about nowadays and very recent history that we've been witnesses of. The reason is of course that any faith, any religion is purely a human construct. That is human nature - survival trumps all other aspirations, alas. That is the current level of spirituality of human beings worldwide, more or less... Primitive! Will it ever change? I don't know. I surely hope so. Not in our day, I don't think.

One very good thing: we are all discussing it. That alone is the best thing ever and a sign of evolution!

 

[SolomonVII]

I fully understand where you're coming from. I don't think I or anybody else is capable to change your opinion even one yota today, because your convictions are strong. Any true religious believer, or scientific believer, or atheistic believer is like that, no difference. I don't know weather it's good or bad, I'm no judge here.

If that is your commentary, you demonstrate no idea where I am coming from.
My opinions are not fixed about anything

Let's forget about the origins of religion for the moment, it's ancient history after all. Anyone, you or I, can twist it any way we like and be confident we are right, because there is no way to disprove it. No living witnesses. Anything goes, the wildest of wildest theories may be made to sound correct to yourself or somebody else with enough eloquence. "Paroles, paroles" like they say en Français.

If we forget about the origins, then we are in effect ignoring the actual theme of this thread.

You are wrong about Islam and about Christianity. To continue my thought, all religions without any exceptions conform.

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot posit that I am wrong about Islam when it has already been established that I have fully agreed with your hypothesis that Islam has indeed conformed. I am at least right about Islam, following you own point of view of the nature of reality of religions.
The disagreement is only on the nature of Christianity, or more specifically, on the possibilities brought forth by a religion such as Christianity, which is very different than Islam.

It can be seen in Islam very well, it can be seen in Christianity very well, it can be seen in any other religious or areligious ideology of any kind. I talk about nowadays and very recent history that we've been witnesses of. The reason is of course that any faith, any religion is purely a human construct. That is human nature - survival trumps all other aspirations, alas. That is the current level of spirituality of human beings worldwide, more or less... Primitive! Will it ever change? I don't know. I surely hope so. Not in our day, I don't think.

It would take more hubris than I am capable of to agree with you that spirituality, as it has evolved to the present day, is "primitive!"
I also personally could not worship a god that was nothing more than a human construct. That would be akin to worshiping money. It is as foolish to worship a human construct as it was in OT times, when people who did such things were openly mocked by the OT prophets.
In Christianity, religion is seen to be a cooperative venture between man and God, with God supplying the inspiration, and people the perspiration.
Islam is purported to be a direct dictation from God himself.
It is a very different set of rules and with that comes a very different type of society.

One very good thing: we are all discussing it. That alone is the best thing ever and a sign of evolution!

Being able to discuss spiritual is only functionally possible when the religious discourse is seen as a cooperative discourse between man and the Divine. Free discussion requires as a prerequisite the possibility of freedom. Paul avers that we are a redeemed people, imbued with freedom. (Perhaps that is why he is so rejected by most Muslims).
However, when religion is a Divine edict, there is nothing to discuss. One can only submit to the edict unquestioningly.
People are compelled to submit in a society with that kind of religion, and it is the political authorities that are charge with compelling such submission.

Divine law, sharia, as enforced by the caliphate is at the heart of a religion that translates itself as "to submit'.

One must ask then, what came first, the chicken, or the egg, the prophet, or the political institutions that benefited so greatly from the prophecies?

............................
My opinion is not fixed in stone on this, as you believe if must be.
I just see a lot of evidence that the empire proceeded much of the religion, and that the historicity of the prophet is of secondary importance to that. I base that on the evidence presented, and not on adherence to my own immutable intransigent opinions.

 

[DWA2DAY]

....

Nevertheless, there is no much common between Pauline-Christianity and Islam other than the name of the ............

Hi Limo
I introduce myself to you ask a simple Christian named Doug living in Cape Town South Africa. Would you please explain to me what you mean by Pauline-Christianity, this is a foreign term to me and the first I have come across it before.
Please explain this in terms of the Pauline-Christianity faith statement as you would find with for example with the Roman Catholics, Mormons or Later Day Saints etc.

Regards Doug

 

[victorinus]

How do you know that Mohammed actually existed?

fatimah
-and-
the sunni vs shia split
-
you can't create that kind of passion