Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Pamela Spencer · 02-19-2012, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

As mentioned on previous occasions, a new book is scheduled for publication on this very subject by Robert Spencer of www.jihadwatch.org. I heard him say on one video that for several decades after the traditional date of death of Mohammed nothing about him or the Quran is mentioned anywhere. I guess the rest of this is discussed in his book.

Robert Spencer is probably not an unbiased source for information regarding Islam.

Duvduv · 02-19-2012, 01:58 PM

I don't know. But I have never been able to find a book that discusses the theory that Mohammed did not exist.
Anyway, we'll see when the book comes out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pamela Spencer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

As mentioned on previous occasions, a new book is scheduled for publication on this very subject by Robert Spencer of www.jihadwatch.org. I heard him say on one video that for several decades after the traditional date of death of Mohammed nothing about him or the Quran is mentioned anywhere. I guess the rest of this is discussed in his book.

Robert Spencer is probably not an unbiased source for information regarding Islam.

judge · 02-20-2012, 03:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Logical

It seems like a forgone conclusion among serious scholars that Moses did not exist. There is some doubt about Jesus. But I've always been under the impression that everyone agrees that Muhammad was a historical figure.

Comments?

No body wants a fatwa

PhilosopherJay · 02-20-2012, 10:15 AM

Hi Endo,

There is extraordinarily little writing in Arabic before the Islamic period. According to Wikipedia: "The epigraphic record is extremely sparse, with only five certainly pre-Islamic Arabic inscriptions surviving,"

This probably indicates that literacy was well under 1%.

Also note:

Quote:

there were only 17 letters which are different in shape. One letter-shape represented 5 phonemes (b t th n and sometimes y), one represented 3 phonemes (j ħ kh), and 5 each represented 2 phonemes.

So imagine a language where there is no spaces between words and the reader would have to guess at the meaning of nearly every word. For example, look at just one sentence where the phoneme's "b" "t" "th" "n" and sometimes "y" would all have the same symbol.
I*would*e*earl*impossi*le*oreadmos*i*scrip*io*swi* a** cer*ai**

Translation:
It would be nearly impossible to read most inscriptions with any certainty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Endo

Muhammad lived in a much later and better documented age than any possible Moses character, was much more influential during his life than Jesus and the earliest non-Muslim source for his life comes just years after his supposed death. It would have taken an implausibly complex conspiracy to fabricate the man.

It is not until April 643, that we find the first surviving Arabic papyrus (PERF 558), which used dots on individual letters to indicate all the 28 phonemes.

Of course Muhammed died in 632. If Muhammed did write the koran, it would have been in letters that nobody could have read coherently.

While the phonemes could be reproduced now with letters and dots, this did not solve the problem entirely,

Quote:

The lack of vowel signs in Arabic writing created more ambiguities: for example, in Classical Arabic ktb could be kataba = "he wrote", kutiba = "it was written" or kutub="books". Later, vowel signs and hamzas were added, beginning some time in the last half of the 6th century, at about the same time as the first invention of Syriac and Hebrew vocalization. Initially, this was done using a system of red dots, said to have been commissioned by an Umayyad governor of Iraq, Hajjaj ibn Yusuf[citation needed]: a dot above = a, a dot below = i, a dot on the line = u, and doubled dots giving tanwin. However, this was cumbersome and easily confusable with the letter-distinguishing dots, so about 100 years later, the modern system was adopted. The system was finalized around 786 by al-Farahidi.

This is why about 20% of the Koran is considered gibberish and the other 80% is highly uncertain and virtually meaningless when translated.

In such primitive conditions of communications technology, a war chieftain who visits the moon and Moses can hardly be considered a figure of history.

Not an image of Muhammed but an image ofJiralhanae War Cheftain of Halo Nation

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Minimalist · 02-20-2012, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Muhammad lived in a much later and better documented age than any possible Moses character, was much more influential during his life than Jesus and the earliest non-Muslim source for his life comes just years after his supposed death. It would have taken an implausibly complex conspiracy to fabricate the man.

And yet, even with this supposedly later and better documented age there are no contemporary references to any Mohammed. In fact, what exists is merely the same type of pious blather written centuries later - just as it was for "Moses" and "Jesus."

Roger Pearse · 02-20-2012, 11:42 AM

The earliest Arabic biographers of Mohammed are given by Brockelmann. I laboured through his stuff and placed an English translation here:

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/mohammed.html

You will see at once that the earliest extant is ibn Hisham, ca. 834 AD, although drawing on earlier sources.

Bernard Muller · 02-20-2012, 12:17 PM

I suppose I should do some research on that, but I recall reading:
Mohammed was likely illiterate,
Mohammed dictated his visions to a scribe among his followers,
OR/AND
Some followers learned by memory what Mohammed was telling them (of his visions) and that was transmitted for generations as such up to it was written.

Minimalist · 02-20-2012, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

The earliest Arabic biographers of Mohammed are given by Brockelmann. I laboured through his stuff and placed an English translation here:

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/mohammed.html

You will see at once that the earliest extant is ibn Hisham, ca. 834 AD, although drawing on earlier sources.

Just curious, Roger. Does ibn Hisham list his sources?

Duvduv · 02-20-2012, 04:23 PM

In Islam it is stated that the Prophet could neither read nor write.
I argue that in fact the initiators of the Quran also could neither read nor write, and therefore obtained their knowledge from stories they heard rather than direct reading of them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mullerb

I suppose I should do some research on that, but I recall reading:
Mohammed was likely illiterate,
Mohammed dictated his visions to a scribe among his followers,
OR/AND
Some followers learned by memory what Mohammed was telling them (of his visions) and that was transmitted for generations as such up to it was written.

sotto voce · 02-20-2012, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

In Islam it is stated that the Prophet could neither read nor write.
I argue that in fact the initiators of the Quran also could neither read nor write, and therefore obtained their knowledge from stories they heard rather than direct reading of them.

One should not mistake the disorganised nature of the Qur'an as evidence of incompetence. The inchoate mess, of plagiarisms, of repetitious apparent piety, of utterly unsupported contradictions of the Bible, some of which contradict themselves, confuses most readers; but straightforward narrative would have presented obvious fabrication, disastrously. Jumble was the only recourse available, as Rome had taken the 'Christian' option, and Arabia did not want to quarrel with Europe. Not at that stage, anyway. To a theologian, the author(s) obviously knew both Old and New Testaments well, and cobbled up a religion that borrowed the credibility and authority of Christianity, while flatly contradicting it. They quite possibly had 'expert' assistance from Europe, and probably thought they had done a cunning job.

The Pharisees of Jesus' day carried on with their legalism, though obviously had to adapt to losing every familiar artefact except texts. Rome had another form of legalism, adapted to its state-centred social policy, falsely representing the heritage of Abraham. Islam is a hybrid of the two; a predictable one. The primitive theology, the shameless lies, the timing, the location, the enormity of the crimes, all were predictable. That's humanity.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-20-2012, 11:42 AM	#16
Roger Pearse Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: N/A Posts: 4,370	The earliest Arabic biographers of Mohammed are given by Brockelmann. I laboured through his stuff and placed an English translation here: http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/mohammed.html You will see at once that the earliest extant is ibn Hisham, ca. 834 AD, although drawing on earlier sources.

02-20-2012, 12:17 PM	#17
Bernard Muller Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 927	I suppose I should do some research on that, but I recall reading: Mohammed was likely illiterate, Mohammed dictated his visions to a scribe among his followers, OR/AND Some followers learned by memory what Mohammed was telling them (of his visions) and that was transmitted for generations as such up to it was written.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.