Freethought & Rationalism Archive

premjan · 10-13-2006, 11:55 AM

There is historical mention of him within about 3 years after his death according to that informative page. Arabia is an isolated and undeveloped area at this time so it is not so surprising that records have not survived.

Quote:

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; 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.

http://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-e...ammed_3866.jsp

Bright Life · 10-13-2006, 12:57 PM

GRD to ASCH

*poof*

Malachi151 · 10-13-2006, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by premjan

There is historical mention of him within about 3 years after his death according to that informative page. Arabia is an isolated and undeveloped area at this time so it is not so surprising that records have not survived.

http://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-e...ammed_3866.jsp

I've seen that quote addressed. I'll have to find the info, but its support for Muhammad is dubious at best.

Clivedurdle · 10-13-2006, 02:10 PM

Quote:

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; 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.

From Crone on other thread - but other one still seems open!

aa5874 · 10-13-2006, 03:26 PM

Malachi 151, maybe you could tell us what Mary and the names of other characters mean. This is very interesting.

Malachi151 · 10-13-2006, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

I've seen that quote addressed. I'll have to find the info, but its support for Muhammad is dubious at best.

Nope, I was mistaken, I haven't seen that one addressed. And upon furhter inspection, I can't even find a source for this other then the one link that you gave.

Crone is an authority, but I'd still need to see more info myself and get more detials on these supposed texts.

And also, this gets back to the Jesus issue. If the Muhammad that is described by "real history" so far does not match the one described by the Kroan, can we say that the Muhammad of the Koran exsited?

I find this highly suspect:

Quote:

Everything else about Mohammed is more uncertain, but we can still say a fair amount with reasonable assurance. Most importantly, we can be reasonably sure that the Qur'an is a collection of utterances that he made in the belief that they had been revealed to him by God. The book may not preserve all the messages he claimed to have received, and he is not responsible for the arrangement in which we have them. They were collected after his death – how long after is controversial. But that he uttered all or most of them is difficult to doubt. Those who deny the existence of an Arabian prophet dispute it, of course, but it causes too many problems with later evidence, and indeed with the Qur'an itself, for the attempt to be persuasive.

Yikes:

Quote:

The Qur'an does not give us an account of the prophet's life. On the contrary: it does not show us the prophet from the outside at all, but rather takes us inside his head, where God is speaking to him, telling him what to preach, how to react to people who poke fun at him, what to say to his supporters, and so on. We see the world through his eyes, and the allusive style makes it difficult to follow what is going on.

The more I read the less I find this credible, despite the fact that Crone is a long time student of Islamic history...

Quote:

We shall never be able to do without the literary sources, of course, and the chances are that most of what the tradition tells us about the prophet's life is more or less correct in some sense or other. But no historical interpretation succeeds unless the details, the context and the perspectives are right. We shall never know as much as we would like to (when do we?), but Islamicists have every reason to feel optimistic that many of the gaps in our current knowledge will be filled in the years ahead.

WOW, she also treated the hadith as reliable source so finformation about Muhammad!!!

Yikes, no I don't find this to be a credible source.

Solo · 10-13-2006, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

Its obvious to Jews, they know that Adam means earth, they use the language.

Also, BTW, the name Peter literally means rock, its not a name even, it was never a name before the invention of the Peter character.

The name comes from the Greek Petra, from which we get petrafication, etc.

Peter is the masculinization of Petra to create the name Peter, or Rock, which, in Mithric mythology (the dominant religion of the Roman Empire when Christianity deveoloped) is the source of the birth and power of Mithras, i.e. the Rock is the foundation of the religion, and in Christianity Peter (Rock) is supposed to be the foundation of the Church, as Jesus delcared "Peter you shall be the rock on which the church is founded", or, in the origional Greek "Rock, you shall be the rock..."

I'm petrafied...flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but our Father who is in heaven

Jiri

Solo · 10-13-2006, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

I'm petrafied...

On second thought, shouldn't that be enkephalost?

Jiri

Suzume · 10-13-2006, 11:30 PM

One difference between the historical Jesus and historical Mohammad is that we have historical events that his existence seems to be needed to explain, where with Jesus only the belief in his existence is necessary.

What I mean is that starting in around 635 or so, united Arab armies attacked both the exhausted Roman and Neo-Persian empires, serverely damaging the first and destroying the second. Previously the Arabs had not been united, and posed a limited threat.

Hence we have to explain the new union. That this might lie in part due to some warlord using a combination of diplomacy and force to create the union is hardly unlikely, and is believed to have happened a number of times in history, such as with Chinggis Khan and Alexander the great.

So, we can consider this postulated warlord the 'Historical Mohammad'. To what extent he resembles the deeds associated with him is then the question.

Could he not have existed at all? Then we still have to explain the union of the Arabs. A council of various war leaders could have gathered, and perhaps decided to put away the sword amongst themselves in favour of the richer pickings of the weakend world superpowers, but even then it is likely that one would have become the chief, and again we have a historical Mohammad.

As for his name appearing to be a title, I don't find it that convincing. There are two rather simple explanations. The first is that this 'title sounding' name really was a common or rare name, such as john or peter is among us. The second is like the name Augustus, or Chinggis Khan. Both are really titles, but have displaced their common names sufficiently that only historians are familiar with their real name. That a warlord might have a similar history is hardly unlikely, and of course we do not have a great deal of history from that area to discover what his real name was.

I suppose what I mean is that in the case of the mystical Jesus only the belief in his existence requires explanation. In the case of Mohammad, both the belief in his existence and the recent union of the Arab armies needs to be explained.

As a matter of interest, do we have any historical documents suggesting any other explanation for the Arab union other then due to the actions of a warlord?

Tammuz · 10-14-2006, 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

And also, this gets back to the Jesus issue. If the Muhammad that is described by "real history" so far does not match the one described by the Kroan, can we say that the Muhammad of the Koran exsited?

But the Quran isn't a biography of Muhammed like the Gospels are on Jesus. It is rather what's going on in his head. (Supposedly) Allah tells him how to respond to demands of miracles, respond to those that make fun of him, answer "tough" questions etc. It contain (hearsay) biographies of the Biblical prophets, but no biography of Muhammed. You'll have to go to the Sirah to find biographies of Muhammed.

Even the most revisionistic theory I know of, namely Hagarism, assumed that Muhammed was a real historical figure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patricia Crone

Everything else about Mohammed is more uncertain, but we can still say a fair amount with reasonable assurance. Most importantly, we can be reasonably sure that the Qur'an is a collection of utterances that he made in the belief that they had been revealed to him by God. The book may not preserve all the messages he claimed to have received, and he is not responsible for the arrangement in which we have them.

I would suggest, based on Denis Giron's multiple sources hypothesis, that the Quran we have today contain different preservations of what Muhammed said, and that all those were at some point (before 750 C.E) waived together. This would explain the repetitions. As I said before, I think that the Quran's origin is similar to the Documentary hypothesis for the Torah, i.e different groups had their particular preservation of the tales, and that they were all waived together into one book at some point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patricia Crone

The Qur'an does not give us an account of the prophet's life. On the contrary: it does not show us the prophet from the outside at all, but rather takes us inside his head, where God is speaking to him, telling him what to preach, how to react to people who poke fun at him, what to say to his supporters, and so on. We see the world through his eyes, and the allusive style makes it difficult to follow what is going on.

But this is true. Try to read the Quran for yourself: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

WOW, she also treated the hadith as reliable source so finformation about Muhammad!!!

She said that Hadiths narrating about events in Muhammed's life were likely true in some way. There are still good reason to doubt Hadiths concerning doctrine. We can outright dismiss those Hadiths narrating about Muhammed's miracles and angels coming for support and other supernatural events.

10-13-2006, 11:30 PM	#59
Suzume Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Australia Posts: 55	Byzantine History One difference between the historical Jesus and historical Mohammad is that we have historical events that his existence seems to be needed to explain, where with Jesus only the belief in his existence is necessary. What I mean is that starting in around 635 or so, united Arab armies attacked both the exhausted Roman and Neo-Persian empires, serverely damaging the first and destroying the second. Previously the Arabs had not been united, and posed a limited threat. Hence we have to explain the new union. That this might lie in part due to some warlord using a combination of diplomacy and force to create the union is hardly unlikely, and is believed to have happened a number of times in history, such as with Chinggis Khan and Alexander the great. So, we can consider this postulated warlord the 'Historical Mohammad'. To what extent he resembles the deeds associated with him is then the question. Could he not have existed at all? Then we still have to explain the union of the Arabs. A council of various war leaders could have gathered, and perhaps decided to put away the sword amongst themselves in favour of the richer pickings of the weakend world superpowers, but even then it is likely that one would have become the chief, and again we have a historical Mohammad. As for his name appearing to be a title, I don't find it that convincing. There are two rather simple explanations. The first is that this 'title sounding' name really was a common or rare name, such as john or peter is among us. The second is like the name Augustus, or Chinggis Khan. Both are really titles, but have displaced their common names sufficiently that only historians are familiar with their real name. That a warlord might have a similar history is hardly unlikely, and of course we do not have a great deal of history from that area to discover what his real name was. I suppose what I mean is that in the case of the mystical Jesus only the belief in his existence requires explanation. In the case of Mohammad, both the belief in his existence and the recent union of the Arab armies needs to be explained. As a matter of interest, do we have any historical documents suggesting any other explanation for the Arab union other then due to the actions of a warlord?

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

10-13-2006, 12:57 PM	#52
Bright Life Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 8,345	GRD to ASCH poof

10-13-2006, 03:26 PM	#55
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	Malachi 151, maybe you could tell us what Mary and the names of other characters mean. This is very interesting.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.