Freethought & Rationalism Archive

firecoins · 11-20-2008, 09:49 PM

I keep a poster of Mohammed next to my bed.

Roger Pearse · 11-20-2008, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by firecoins

I keep a poster of Mohammed next to my bed.

Interesting seduction technique. Does it work, we ask?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse · 11-20-2008, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Didymus

In the study of history, especially ancient history, it's very rare for a hypothesis to fit all the data. Historians disagree on the reliability and significance of data. That's why history books are still being written.

The point being made was that the idea that Mohammed existed can only be advanced by suppressing data. Whether or not "in the study of history" -- is this a claim to represent professional historians? -- it is "very rare for a hypothesis to fit all the data" -- evidence? --, I would query whether any theory that relies on selective omission of sources needs much consideration.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

avi · 11-21-2008, 02:46 AM

Toto, in post #12, in addition to providing links to the Marx interview with Der Spiegel, offered some additional links to authors supporting Sven Kalisch's hypothesis that Islam is derived from Christian gnosticism, as is described in the link from the original post:

Quote:

Originally Posted by WSJ describing the evolution of Sven Kalisch's ideas

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.

From those same links, one reads that the story of the prophet, Mohammed, and his supposed flight from Medina to Mecca, is derived from a retelling, in an Arabic milieu, of the fable of Moses' flight from Egypt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I would query whether any theory that relies on selective omission of sources needs much consideration.

I disagree with Roger, regarding Sven Kalisch's methods.
In my opinion, Sven Kalisch's hypothesis does warrant consideration.

Here is a link to a somewhat more supportive summary of Sven's hypothesis, though, I acknowledge that this link omits reference to the 2006 debate on this subject at the forum (thanks Clive for the link!) I do not know the name of the author, who is writing in the first person here:

Quote:

Originally Posted by icjs online

"We hardly have original Islamic sources from the first two centuries of Islam," Kalisch observes in a German-language paper available on the Muenster University (website). It is fascinating reading, and since it is not yet available in English I take the liberty of translating or summarizing a few salient points. Responsibility for any errors of translation of interpretation is my own.

Kalisch continues, "And even when a source appears to come from this period, caution is required. The mere assertion that a source stems from the first or second century of the Islamic calendar means nothing. And even when a source actually was written in the first or second century, the question always remains of later manipulation. We do not tread on firm ground in the sources until the third Islamic century."

....
The great scandal of Islamic tradition is the absence of Islamic formulations from coins and monuments dating from the its first two centuries, as well as the presence of material obviously incompatible with Islam. "Coins and inscriptions are incompatible with the Islamic writing of history," Kalisch concludes on the strength of older work, including Yehuda Nevo and Jutith Koren's Crossroads to Islam.

The oldest inscription with the formulation "Mohammed Messenger of Allah" is to found in the 66th year of Islamic reckoning, and after that used continuously. But there also exist coins found in Palestine, probably minted in Amman, on which the word "Muhammed" is found in Arabic script on one side, and a picture of a man holding a cross on the other.

....

Why, indeed, was the Mohammed story invented, by whom, and to what end? The story of the Hegira, Mohammed's flight from Mecca to Medina allegedly in 622, provides a clue, according to Kalisch. "No prophet is mentioned in the Koran as often as Moses, and Muslim tradition always emphasized the great similarly between Moses and Mohammed," he writes. "The central event in the life of Moses, though, is the Exodus of the oppressed Children of Israel out of Egypt, and the central event in the life of Mohammed is the Exodus of his oppressed congregation out of Mecca to Medina ... The suspicion is great that the Hegira appears only for this reason in the story of the Prophet, because his image should emulate the image of Moses."

Thus, Sven Kalisch's theory sounds remarkably similar in many respects to Mountain Man's hypothesis regarding the origins of Christianity, focusing on absence of archaeological data to support the existence of the "prophet", until the 8th century. I don't observe the selective omissions of sources, described by Roger. I welcome a link to some source suggesting contrarily, that there does exist seventh century archaeological evidence supporting the notion that Islam was founded by "Mohammed".

PhilosopherJay · 11-21-2008, 11:19 AM

Right or wrong, this is a courageous and heroic position for Kalisch to take.

We should remember that if people like Jean Meslier and Paul-Henri Thiry had not written their works on atheism a few hundred years ago, we would all still be believing in God. We should also remember that Jean Meslier never published his writings in his lifetime, and Thiry used a pseudonym.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by TruthPrevails

Quote:

MÜNSTER, Germany -- Muhammad Sven Kalisch, a Muslim convert and Germany's first professor of Islamic theology, fasts during the Muslim holy month, doesn't like to shake hands with Muslim women and has spent years studying Islamic scripture. Islam, he says, guides his life.

So it came as something of a surprise when Prof. Kalisch announced the fruit of his theological research. His conclusion: The Prophet Muhammad probably never existed.

Muslims, not surprisingly, are outraged. Even Danish cartoonists who triggered global protests a couple of years ago didn't portray the Prophet as fictional. German police, worried about a violent backlash, told the professor to move his religious-studies center to more-secure premises.

For more read at:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1226...eTabs_comments

gilly54 · 11-21-2008, 02:36 PM

Quote:

We should remember that if people like Jean Meslier and Paul-Henri Thiry had not written their works on atheism a few hundred years ago, we would all still be believing in God.

Oh, I don't know about that. I like to think I came about my atheism through personal introspection and rational thought.

The fact that all the holy books warn believers against us non-believers, says that we've been around for quite some time and didn't need a couple of French guys to show us the light.

youngalexander · 11-23-2008, 02:02 AM

Quote:

"Of course __________ existed," says Tilman Nagel, a scholar in Göttingen and author of a new book, "__________: Life and Legend." The Prophet differed from the flawless figure of ______ tradition, Prof. Nagel says, but "it is quite astonishing to say that thousands and thousands of pages about him were all forged" and there was no such person.

And so it goes!:huh:

Didymus · 11-23-2008, 05:17 PM

What is it you're trying to say, Y.A.?

Ddms

youngalexander · 11-23-2008, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Didymus

What is it you're trying to say, Y.A.?

Ddms

Just inviting you to fill in the blanks with a favourite Prophet/Founder/Saviour/Deity ...

The quote is from the OP link. Nobody could possibly have made up those thousands of Sacred pages - could they?:constern01:

Apostate1970 · 11-23-2008, 05:39 PM

"We had no idea he would have ideas like this," says Thomas Bauer, a fellow academic at Münster University who sat on a committee that appointed Prof. Kalisch. "I'm a more orthodox Muslim than he is, and I'm not a Muslim."

Quite correct.

But only a few scholars have doubted Muhammad's existence. Most say his life is better documented than that of Jesus. "Of course Muhammad existed," says Tilman Nagel, a scholar in Göttingen and author of a new book, "Muhammad: Life and Legend." The Prophet differed from the flawless figure of Islamic tradition, Prof. Nagel says, but "it is quite astonishing to say that thousands and thousands of pages about him were all forged" and there was no such person.

Again, quite correct.

To him, what matters isn't whether Muhammad actually lived but the philosophy presented in his name.

And that philosophy includes that those who speak against Mohammed, which would have to include speaking against his existence, must die.

Prof. Kalisch was told he could keep his professorship but must stop teaching Islam to future school teachers.

And this is as it should be since, in teaching that Mohammed never existed, he's not teaching Islam.

"There must be a free discussion of Islam," he says.

Yes but, sadly, it can't be muslims who freely discuss it. If you discuss it like this then you're ipso facto not a muslim.

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

11-20-2008, 09:49 PM	#41
firecoins Junior Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: New York Posts: 26	I keep a poster of Mohammed next to my bed.

11-23-2008, 05:17 PM	#48
Didymus Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: California Posts: 416	What is it you're trying to say, Y.A.? Ddms

11-23-2008, 05:39 PM	#50
Apostate1970 Banned Join Date: May 2008 Location: Texas Posts: 2,347	"We had no idea he would have ideas like this," says Thomas Bauer, a fellow academic at Münster University who sat on a committee that appointed Prof. Kalisch. "I'm a more orthodox Muslim than he is, and I'm not a Muslim." Quite correct. But only a few scholars have doubted Muhammad's existence. Most say his life is better documented than that of Jesus. "Of course Muhammad existed," says Tilman Nagel, a scholar in Göttingen and author of a new book, "Muhammad: Life and Legend." The Prophet differed from the flawless figure of Islamic tradition, Prof. Nagel says, but "it is quite astonishing to say that thousands and thousands of pages about him were all forged" and there was no such person. Again, quite correct. To him, what matters isn't whether Muhammad actually lived but the philosophy presented in his name. And that philosophy includes that those who speak against Mohammed, which would have to include speaking against his existence, must die. Prof. Kalisch was told he could keep his professorship but must stop teaching Islam to future school teachers. And this is as it should be since, in teaching that Mohammed never existed, he's not teaching Islam. "There must be a free discussion of Islam," he says. Yes but, sadly, it can't be muslims who freely discuss it. If you discuss it like this then you're ipso facto not a muslim.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.