Tammuz

If you have read something from the Quran, you would see that it is highly unlikely. The Quran is almost always what's in Muhammed's head. It tells how Muhammed shall respond to doubters (for example answers to "hard questions" or things which are supposed to prove that Islam is of divine origin), to those who make fun of him, to those that demand of him to preform miracles and so on. It is in such cases formulated like "Do they say...? Say to them: ...". It also contain legal rulings, references to the battles between the Muslims and their opponents and so on.

Well, it appears that nobody questions the existence of pre-Islamic Arabic poetry, even though much of it was written down after Islam. Pre-Islamic poetry rarely exhibits religious expressions, which it probably would have done if the Muslims made it up later and projected it back in time.

Muhammed is a name which means "the praised one". Even though it was an uncommon name among the pre-Islamic Arabs, it was nevertheless given to other persons than Muhammed ibn Abdullah. One of Muhammed ibn Abdullah's Medinese followers was named Muhammed ibn Maslema.

And nobody is claiming that Muhammed wrote down the Quran himself. According to the official history, Muhammed recited the "revelations", and it was written down and memorized by his followers.

For those of you who claim that there was no historical Muhammed, would you please like to give an alternative explanation to the rise of Islam? I.e, how did the religion arise, what caused the Arabs to unite, what was the reason they made up the religion, who made up Muhammed, and why did they make up a prophet-character with such poor behaviour and ethics?

The assumption that there was no historical Muhammed causes more questions and problems than it solves. What in the early Islamic history makes more sense with a mythical Muhammed than with a historical one?

Laura D.

Can you link the source. I learned his paternal grandfather's name as Shaiba ibn Hashim also known as ‘Abdu’l-Muttalib (Servant of Muttalib after his Uncle Muttalib, I believe, but honestly, I'm not really up on translating names without figuring out the exact, not transliterated, spelling and hitting the dictionaries).

It is Ahmed (though that can be translated as Praised One or Highly Praised, I believe, again I don't usually translate names). An exact transliteration without vowel diacritical marks is AHMD.

Go to this link, http://quran.al-islam.com/Targama/Di...1&nAya=6&t=eng,

And it is the first word on the fifth line of the Arabic Script from the right (Arabic script is read right to left). The 'Iasa and Maryam they speak of is generally considered to be Jesus and Mary.

God bless,


Laura

Godless Dave

I'm pretty sure there's a birth certificate somewhere.

Tammuz

It could be made up, as could photos and videos...

Laura D.

I must say, the apologists for the Dawkins Mythology chose a lovely icon to represent his physical manifestation, scholarly, very British:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWL1ZMH3-54.

The issue we raise is fair. How do we judge historical source material? I'm going to go out on a limb and state my opinion, there is a kernel of historical fact behind the Dawkins Mythology and he is or was living, breathing, human being at some point. Of course, unlike the Historical Jesus and the Historical Muhammad, I might just be able to test my theory with a quick run up to Oxford.

Pending further evaluation, I fall into the yes as far as the historicity of all three individuals (my view on on Jesus tracks Crossan's idea of movement, execution, continued movement; my view of Muhammad is that he introduced or modified certain religious ideas, pulled together previously competing tribal/family factions so that they began to look outward rather than raiding against each other; my view on Dawkins is he has a nice accent, I could listen to his voice for quite awhile).

God bless,


Laura