Didymus

How many years must he study the question before he's allowed to state his conclusions?

His reasoning and facts are what's important, not how long it took him to study the issue.

I don't believe any member of this forum has read MSK's book or reviewed his research. But that hasn't kept Roger, Elijah and thedistillers from jumping to their own conclusions about his work. And worse, impugning his motives. Why is that?

Sounds to me like the dubious motives in this case are not those of Muhammed Sven Kalisch.

Roger Pearse

Do we know the former? The latter, obviously, he didn't think would happen.

Agreed, although of course not if he belongs to one of the Groups Who May Not Be Heard in our politically correct age.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

Depends on whether his statements are conclusions or not, I suppose.

Agreed.

Oh dear, what a stale old cliche.

For 30 years every publisher of tat has publicised his wares and his thesis widely and, when criticised, tried to silence that criticism by saying: "you're not allowed to criticise unless you buy my product." To which any intelligent person will respond with a raspberry. There is no conceivable reason why anyone should buy rubbish, or refrain from criticising someone who is pushing an idea in the public space merely because they claim to have a 'justification' for sale somewhere.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

Well he would, wouldn't he?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

thedistillers

Yes and no. It depends of what we're talking about. In this case, he's going against a quasi-universal consensus, only months after believing Muhammad existence is more probable than not. Excuse me if I'm being skeptical.

You know, it's easy to come up with a fringe hypothesis and defend it with selective data. Some religionists and anti-religionists are good at that. That's another to make sure your hypothesis fit best with ALL the data.

In the case of a major religion, the idea that a fringe hypothesis could adequately be defended in a short period of time seems like fantasy to me, unless he has made a spectacular new discovery. But it doesn't appear to be the case if I judge from the article.

Didymus

Not "yes and no." Yes.

Skepticism is one thing, knee-jerk dismissiveness is another.

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. Except by Muslims about the origin of Islam, because in that world it is quite likely that any non-apologetical investigation would likely be considered apostasy, a capital offense.

In any event, why jump to conclusions about this guy's work? What's the rush?

The article can't possibly be a sufficient basis upon which to judge the claim.

Ddms

Clivedurdle

Is it possibly to explain the Islamic conquests without uncle mo? If it is the suggestion that he did not exist should be taken seriously.

Newton's Cat

... and the Koran contains deliberate lies.

spamandham

Have you read the argument? If not, then how can you brush it aside so easily?

Islam has as its origin a combination of religions, including Christianity and Judaism. Judaism has a history of inventing legendary figures for story telling purposes: Adam, Abraham, Moses, and many others. Jesus possibly follows that tradition, as does possibly Muhammed. Until the evidence and argument are examined, they can't simply be dismissed as being the minority.

spamandham

A change of perspective can happen in a single insight, with no new evidence examined at all. Often, an unrelated observation makes it all "click". That's how many great discoveries are made; the subconscious mind finally gets it's message across to the stubborn ego that's programmed not to change easily.