Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chili · 09-29-2008, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I don't think Muhammad should be compared to Jesus.

Jesus is worshiped as a God and was described as a God that pre-existed before creation.

Muhammad should probably be compared to the unknown authors of the NT and of course there is no evidence for the unknown.

Right. A better comparison would be between Mohammed and Paul, both believed to be messengers who impacted real people and communities.

Nono, Mohammed and Billy Graham/Luther/Joseph Smith are two of a kind.

I think it is fair to say that Mohammed was to Judaism what Luther was to Catholicism. I wonder where his Genenis is from and does he/Islam even have a Genesis?

gstafleu · 09-29-2008, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

Arab-Sassanian coins bearing the legends Maawia amir i-wruishnikan (Mu‘āwiya, commander of the faithful).

Not knowing much about the language: is Maawia/Mu‘āwiya a reasonable rendition of Muhammed?

Gerard Stafleu

gstafleu · 09-29-2008, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Although the Quran attribution is not well supported, neither is there any evidence contradicting it.

Have people looked for such evidence? It must be possible, I'd think, to use various text analysis tools (word frequency and such) to establish if the Koran was by and large a single-author affair.

Gerard Stafleu

bacht · 09-29-2008, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

I think it is fair to say that Mohammed was to Judaism what Luther was to Catholicism. I wonder where his Genesis is from and does he/Islam even have a Genesis?

I think I've read that there were non-orthodox Christian groups in the Arabian peninsula that might have influenced Mohammed. There was still a Jewish community in Mesopotamia at the time.

Salam · 09-29-2008, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

Arab-Sassanian coins bearing the legends Maawia amir i-wruishnikan (Mu‘āwiya, commander of the faithful).

Not knowing much about the language: is Maawia/Mu‘āwiya a reasonable rendition of Muhammed?

Gerard Stafleu

Maawia is the first Umayyad caliphate. He fought against Ali Ibn Abi Talib (Muhammad's cousin) the forth of the right-guided caliphate. Ali's supporters were called Shiat Ali (Ali's supporters), after Maawia took power, he began prosecuting the Shias. That was the start of the problems between Sunnis and Shias.

If Muhammad never existed, then his cousin never existed. That means we wouldn't have Shias nowadays.

mountainman · 09-29-2008, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alias

Is there more historical evidence for Muhammad than there is for Jesus?

Considering that he lived 7 centuries later, there ought to be.

Constantine published Jesus two centuries before the century in which Muhammad lived, and we have no unambiguous evidence that Jesus either lived or died. The thrust of the belief in Jesus does not arise from the field of ancient history, but the field of personal faith and external church authorities, due to the nature of the evidence available to us. Namely, zero.

Best wishes,

Pete

Alias · 09-29-2008, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clinical

Quote:

Is there more historical evidence for Muhammad than there is for Jesus?

Yes, there is.

According to Patricia Crone, who is far from being a friend of Islam, "There is no doubt that Mohammed existed, occasional attempts to deny it notwithstanding. His neighbours in Byzantine Syria got to hear of him within two years of his death at the latest;" http://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-e...ammed_3866.jsp

I found this in the article

Quote:

a Greek text written during the Arab invasion of Syria between 632 and 634 mentions that "a false prophet has appeared among the Saracens" and dismisses him as an impostor on the ground that prophets do not come "with sword and chariot". It thus conveys the impression that he was actually leading the invasions.

That seems to corroberate Muslim tradition.

Alias · 09-29-2008, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Qur'anic criticism tends to be a bit riskier on a personal level than Biblical criticism, so it is less developed.

Yes, that is definitely an issue.

I also wonder how much crtitical study has been attempted in the Muslim world? My guess is it is just too dangerous.

Alias · 09-29-2008, 07:27 PM

Muhammad also has a tomb.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Masjid_al-Nabawi

Clinical · 09-29-2008, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alias

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clinical

Yes, there is.

According to Patricia Crone, who is far from being a friend of Islam, "There is no doubt that Mohammed existed, occasional attempts to deny it notwithstanding. His neighbours in Byzantine Syria got to hear of him within two years of his death at the latest;" http://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-e...ammed_3866.jsp

I found this in the article

Quote:

a Greek text written during the Arab invasion of Syria between 632 and 634 mentions that "a false prophet has appeared among the Saracens" and dismisses him as an impostor on the ground that prophets do not come "with sword and chariot". It thus conveys the impression that he was actually leading the invasions.

That seems to corroberate Muslim tradition.

No, those invasions happened after his death.
There is also serious doubt about whether those conquerors were Muslim or Pagan.

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

09-29-2008, 07:27 PM	#19
Alias Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Canada Posts: 60	Muhammad also has a tomb. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Masjid_al-Nabawi

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.