Originally Posted by Clinical

"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.

Mohammed's death is normally placed in 632, but the possibility that it should be placed two or three years later cannot be completely excluded. The Muslim calendar was instituted after Mohammed's death, with a starting-point of his emigration (hijra) to Medina (then Yathrib) ten years earlier. Some Muslims, however, seem to have correlated this point of origin with the year which came to span 624-5 in the Gregorian calendar rather than the canonical year of 622.

If such a revised date is accurate, the evidence of the Greek text would mean that Mohammed is the only founder of a world religion who is attested in a contemporary source. But in any case, this source gives us pretty irrefutable evidence that he was an historical figure. Moreover, an Armenian document probably written shortly after 661 identifies him by name and gives a recognisable account of his monotheist preaching."

From Patricia Crone, who is not a friend of Islam at all.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-e...ammed_3866.jsp

The biographies of Muhammed written 100+ years after his death are certainly forgeries, but there is no doubt whatsoever that he existed as a historical person.

Originally Posted by premjan

There's not much historical evidence for lots of people, I imagine. Ramses was a monarch and the Egyptians were given to preserving the bodies of their pharaohs and making statues of them.

Originally Posted by premjan

Muhammad has been heavily mythologized, but if he was invented out of whole cloth, then I would like to see some historical thesis on how such myth-men are created.

Originally Posted by patcleaver

Yes, There are many cultures where names are words or phrases of the language. It was true in both ancient Aramaic and Hebrew.

The word for praiseworthy or blessed in Arabic is mohammad and it was mohammad long before Muhammad was supposedly born.

The phrase "God Saves" in Hebrew is yeshua or joshua and was yeshua or joshua long before the bible says Jesus was born.

I was told in school (unverified) that the Catholic Church in the middle ages initiated the tradition of naming people after saints, and that tradition has continued even after the Catholic Church lost much of its power. The result is that Western names do not usually have any meaning in the modern Western language. Christian is one of few common exceptions. Patrick means nobleman in Latin, but it does not mean anything at all in English.

We still occasionally give people nicknames such as Honest Abe, Old Hickory.

Somebody is lying to you because this is a ridiculous statement. The most popular name for children in the Middle East is Mohammad. This is a culture where people are known by words and phrases in their language, blessed seems like an obvious name for a child, and praiseworthy seems like a popular nickname or title for anyone who accomplished anything, and you're claiming that you know as a fact that, never in the history of that culture of tens of thousands of people was anyone ever named or called blessed or praiseworthy before the 7th century. Your ridiculous unsupported assertion just demonstrates that religious people cannot think for themselves, but they just parrot information from those who are lying to them. Please prove that your amazing assertion is true.

There are lots of inscriptions on buildings and dated inscriptions in ancient Arabic grave yards that contain significant phrases found in the Quran from long before we have evidence that the Quran existed. The earliest Quran is from the 10 th century. Do you think that the Quran does not contain any words or phrases that existed before it was written? Have you ever repeated a phrase that you have heard? Do you think that Mohammad never repeated a phrase that he heard?

It does not say anywhere in the Quran or in any other ancient documents of Islam that I know of that Muhammad wrote and collected the Quran. That seems like something that your just parroting from someone who is obviously lying to you. Please tell me where it says that.

The Quran is most likely a collection of fictional tails and popular sayings that were collected and combined and then mistakenly attributed to a fictional character called Mohammad.

What is your evidence that the Quran existed before the 10 th century in the same form it exists now?

What is the evidence that, the Quran is not fiction?

What is the evidence that, the Quran is not recorded mythology?

How do you know that the Quran is not collected stories and sayings of multiple people?

What is the evidence that, the Quran is not political or military propaganda (e.g. to establish a single religion in an Arabic military)?

What is the evidence that the Quran has not been modified?

What is the evidence that, there really was a Mohammad on which the Quran was based?

What is the evidence is that, Mohammad was visited by the angel Gabriel?

How do you know that Mohamed did not believe things without reasonable evidence? How do you know that he did not just believe without evidence that Gabriel was dictating what he was thinking? You think that its alright to believe things without evidence yourself?

How do you know that Mohammad was able to determine whether he was really receiving a message from Gabriel?

How do you know that what was written in the Quran is exactly what Gabriel said.

It is the traditional Muslim story of how the Quran was created. We have ancient Muslim documents discussing several recensions. However, I have no reason to believe that the source for the story of Uthma or other recension are any better or worse than the Quran, the Hadith the Sira the Sunna or any of the other ancient forgeries that Islam is based on.


There are no copies of the Quran carbon dated from before the 10th century. The claims for the preservation of the Quran are simply false.

The more sacred the document, the more likely someone would want to revise it to fix problems in it and to use to enshrine their theological opinions.

Although it was obviously a sacred writing – like the Bible, I do not know of any evidence that Muslims idolized the Quran before the 13th century. We have ancient texts written by Moslem's complaining that parts of the Quran were deleted by recessions. Please proved evidence that the Quran existed in its current form before the 10th century.

We have evidence of the New Testament being modified as late as the 10 th century, and there is no evidence that the Quran was considered by Muslims in the 10th century to be any more sacred then the Christians considered the New Testament in the 10th century.

I thought Muslims pretend not to be polytheists or idol worshiper. Are you claiming that Muslims worshiped the Quran as a idol beginning in the seventh century?

The US constitution is sacred to me, but I do not worship it. I would not be offended if you said that the US constitution is dog s__t.

Catholics worship the Eucharist – it’s a cracker that they serve at religious ceremonies. They would be very offended if I said that the Eucharist was dog s__t. Some Catholics went wild recently when someone claimed to have stolen one of their crackers and claimed that he was going to nail it to a tree. Some of them even threatened to kill him. On the other hand, Catholics really believe that the Cracker has been transmuted into the flesh and blood of God the son, and that when they eat the cracker that they are eating God the son, that they are being cannibals, so we can understand their reaction.

We have fundamentalist Christians in the US who worship their bibles as a false God. They claim that their bibles are the inerrant infallible word of God himself and they talk about blaspheming the Bible like it was a God. They do not kill people for blaspheming their bible, but they might if it wasn’t illegal to murder people. They deny that they are idol worshipers, as they worship their idol, because their idol tells them not to worship idols. The logic of religion makes us laugh.

Do Muslims worship the Kaaba building in Mecca. Would a Muslim be offended if I said that the Kaaba was dog s__t?

Do Muslims worship the black stone in the Kaaba. Would a Muslim be offended if I said that the black stone in the Kaaba was dog s__t?

Obvious truth is blasphemy in Islam. In several places the Quran states that Muhammad asked Allah to forgive his sins, for example, when he married the wife of his adopted son Zaid (Sura al-Ahzab 33:38; Ghafir 40:56; Muhammad 47:21). However, if someone says that Mohammad sometimes committed sins then they will be accused of Blasphemy.

I read a story where a teacher was killed for blasphemy for stating the obviously true fact that Mohammad did not believe in Islam until he was visited by the angel Gabriel in the cave of Mecca. How can people be so Evil?

I do not think I need to ask this question about Mohammad or the Quran – they are obviously worshiped as idols. You worship them as Gods while pretending that you are not worshiping them as Gods.

Muhammed supposedly died in 632. Mid 7th century is 120 years later. How do you know that the sayings on the inscriptions were not popular sayings before the Quran or that the inscriptions themselves were not the source of the sayings in the Quran. Please provide evidence that the Quran existed before the saying of the inscriptions existed.



If you had an original Quran that was carbon dated to 610 and signed by Mohammad in blood that genetically matched his body in his grave and his decedents, that would still not prove that he ever saw Gabriel and that he did not just make it all up. People write fictional things all the time with the very best of intentions.

If Mohammed appeared here to day and we could ask him, then he might say that he was just writing a story for his kids - we just don't know.

I though Gabriel supposedly dictated the book of heaven to Mohammed in the cave. I heard “each prophet received some pages of the original book of Heaven from Allah”.

Are you saying that Gabriel dictated other material besides the pages of the book of heaven; or are you saying that some of the material in the Quran are not from Gabriel, but just from Mohammad?

Blasphemy is the act of insulting a God. Muslims claim that insulting the Quran is blasphemy. Therefore, Muslims treat the Quran as a god. Muslims have been worshiping the false idol of the Quran since at least the 13th century. I think that idol worship of a book is a disease of fundamentalism.

I only know what I read that I find believable. If you have some facts or citations that show that Anti-intellectualism is not rampant in Muslim countries or that it is not a common claim in Muslim countries that the Quran is the only thing worth knowing, then please provide them so that we can know the truth.

Name one single scientific discovery that is the product of the religion of Islam or any religion. It is impossible because superstitions are not a source of scientific knowledge or discoveries. All knowledge about the material world is the result of the search for knowledge in the material world.

Please consider my comments honestly and please correct my mistakes with correct facts and citations to sources of information so everyone can know what is true.

Originally Posted by premjan

There is a difference between a scientific assertion and what actually is likely to be true. Yes, to be a reliable thesis it needs to be backed up with evidence. But practically evidence is sparse for many historical figures. It is one thing to say don't believe that Muhammad was real without strong evidence. It is another thing to say Muhammad was almost certainly false. I am not emotionally interested in believing in Muhammad as a prophet. However I am not entirely sure that he (or say the Buddha) were manufactured entities. It takes a certain amount of human organization to manufacture the existence of people. Yes, it could be that founding myths are important, it is a pattern frequently seen - the Mahabharata was perhaps important to legitimize the Aryan occupation of India for instance. But if Muhammad were not real then someone has actually painstakingly constructed a series of religious principles in any case (in verse no less), and sought to delude others. It is an intellectual act probably somewhat more interesting altogether than the simple existence of such a warlord prophet.

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Israel is a key prophecy that backs the bible and God.