In search for the historical Mohammed

Prove Islam is from God, why it is the 'One True Religion'.
User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: In search for the historical Mohammed

Post by manfred »

Eagle the text of the doctrina Iacobi is not about Islam. It only mentions something in passing likely to relate to it. Just because you don't like that passage it becomes a "polemic"....? It's main subject is Jews converting to Christianity.... That is not relevant here.

And while there is a GREEK TRANSLATION, the text was Aramaic first.

But all that is not really relevant. This text appears to be the first (oldest) source for the man Mohammed. The prophet of the Arabs is described as a violent man, something that is not disputed, but there are some differences in the way he is otherwise described, compared with later Islamic texts... He is SEEN as someone much more closely connected to fringe Christianity than is comfortable for Muslims.

First did you notice that neither Mohammed is named but also Muslims are not referred to by name? That is significant. In fact we do not have the term Muslim used until then 690s. Here Mohammed is viewed like a heretical Christian, something that other early Christian writers, such a John of Damascus also do.

It is also factual that neither Jews nor Christians accepted Mohammed's claims in numbers. So overall , we just get a report, facts and views together.

Now, you particularly object to the "keys to paradise" reference. This is a Christian term, linked to Matthew's gospel where Peter is given the power to forgive and retain sin.

I agree that Mohammed did not claim to be able to forgive anything, in fact forgiveness was pretty much on the bottom of his list. But he did, many times, claim that the ONLY religion acceptable involves following him and accepting him as prophet and undisputed leader. Any people who did not could forfeit life and property, and even eternal salvation. So it is perfectly accurate that Mohammed presented himself as the key to paradise. After all, to this day, Muslims believe that only Muslims can enter paradise. So Mohammed clearly IS the "key to paradise" for Muslims. The part that the source got wrong when it suggested he merely HAD the keys.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: In search for the historical Mohammed

Post by manfred »

Or perhaps an UFO from planet M-H-M-D was falsely identified as a prophet? Any historiographic account that can't be confirmed by any other scientific discipline is irrelevant until evidence does emerge.
Why the aggression? Did I say anything about UFOs?

There are sources and there are sources. A text 200 years after the event or more is a WEAK source. Weak does not always mean false. If there is no corroborating evidence, the it becomes VERY weak. But to prove it to be false you need earlier texts, artefacts or archaeological evidence disproving the source. The reason why I posted the paragraph from the docrina Iacobi is to show there ARE some very early sources about Mohammed which present a variation on the general Islamic narrative. It is a little piece of evidence showing that the Islamic version is, shall we say, "polished". Does it mean all of is false? Of course not. But some of it certainly is.

So assuming that there was a proto-Mohammed, a real man, did he massacre a Jewish village? Possibly, as that fits in with all the other things we are told about him, including his violent nature, as per the doctrina Iacobi, and what Muslims themselves say... Proof? None.

Jewish sources are silent on this too, at least until much later.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

User avatar
Takeiteasynow
Posts: 786
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 8:24 pm

Re: In search for the historical Mohammed

Post by Takeiteasynow »

So assuming that there was a proto-Mohammed, a real man, did he massacre a Jewish village? Possibly, as that fits in with all the other things we are told about him, including his violent nature, as per the doctrina Iacobi, and what Muslims themselves say... Proof? None.
This raises a new question: is any historiographical context some kind of proof for a single historiographical account? Of course not, that's exactly how propaganda works. So we have to look at more productive ways to validate the Khaybar account.

Is it part of a transposition?
Assuming that the place of worship was moved from Petra to Mecca you could search for any historical account in the Levant that is more or less similar to that of Khaybar. Is there any? No.

Is there evidence for animosity between Arabs and Jews before the reign of Abd Malik or even 706?
Nope. On the contrary: contemporary accounts describe the first 75 years as a period of peace and cooperation between 'the people of the book' which is confirmed by archeology. One can even find synagogues, churches and 'mosques' inside the same building etc.

That's why the account of Khaybar - and the entire historiographical context of animosity - is a late invention of a 9th century theological tradition. It's nothing but consistent propaganda and fraud.
Abraham= H'ammu'rab(b)i, Historical Muhammad=Benjamin of Tiberias. Islam: Syncretic Israelite Yahwishm Deity: nameless, epithets Dsr, El Qutbay, ʼAlâhâ, Allāh. Ka'ba: Kutha => Samaria => Petra=> Makkah. Hijrah 622: Petra => Kerak

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: In search for the historical Mohammed

Post by manfred »

That's why the account of Khaybar - and the entire historiographical context of animosity - is a late invention of a 9th century theological tradition. It's nothing but consistent propaganda and fraud.
Really? That is a very general statement that would require some proof. So according to you the "real Mohammed" was on friendly terms with Jews? What is your evidence for that? So according to you Mohammed was a peaceful person which was re-styled a blood-thirsty monster by his followers?


There is something else that makes me reluctant to dismiss Kaybar as a myth entirely. We are told that some Jews still lived there during the days of Omar. If there was no truth in the story why would there be no Jewish sources critical of the Muslim account?
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

User avatar
Takeiteasynow
Posts: 786
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 8:24 pm

Re: In search for the historical Mohammed

Post by Takeiteasynow »

Really? That is a very general statement that would require some proof.
Nope, that would be the world upside down. Scholars using historiographical claims need to deliver evidence from other fields of expertise and if they can't their academic license should be revoked.
So according to you the "real Mohammed" was on friendly terms with Jews? What is your evidence for that? So according to you Mohammed was a peaceful person which was re-styled a blood-thirsty monster by his followers?
If I decline one account or concept doesn't mean I claim the opposite. But more crucial: where's the evidence that a historical Muhammad was the leader of a distinct Islamic movement before the reign of Abd Malik? There we go again: there's no clear archeological, linguistical or contemporary evidence - only apologetic accounts that are placed by historiagraphy in certain timelines.

Any scholar who equates the historical Muhammad with its current theological counterpart needs to prove first that a historical Muhammad was the leader of a distinct Islamic movement. And there's the bottleneck: all available evidence suggests the opposite.
Abraham= H'ammu'rab(b)i, Historical Muhammad=Benjamin of Tiberias. Islam: Syncretic Israelite Yahwishm Deity: nameless, epithets Dsr, El Qutbay, ʼAlâhâ, Allāh. Ka'ba: Kutha => Samaria => Petra=> Makkah. Hijrah 622: Petra => Kerak

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: In search for the historical Mohammed

Post by manfred »

Well anyone can call things. You said that the animosity of Mohammed against Jews is a myth. Your claim, your burden of proof.
If I decline one account or concept doesn't mean I claim the opposite.
That also requires elaboration and evidence.
Any scholar who equates the historical Muhammad with its current theological counterpart needs to prove first that a historical Muhammad was the leader of a distinct Islamic movement.
But I don't do that either.... In fact, the whole point of this thread is to make a clear case that the historical Mohammed was DIFFERENT from the Islamic, later version.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

Eagle
Posts: 2093
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:37 pm

Re: In search for the historical Mohammed

Post by Eagle »

manfred wrote:Eagle the text of the doctrina Iacobi is not about Islam. It only mentions something in passing likely to relate to it. Just because you don't like that passage it becomes a "polemic"....? It's main subject is Jews converting to Christianity.... That is not relevant here.

And while there is a GREEK TRANSLATION, the text was Aramaic first.

But all that is not really relevant. This text appears to be the first (oldest) source for the man Mohammed. The prophet of the Arabs is described as a violent man, something that is not disputed, but there are some differences in the way he is otherwise described, compared with later Islamic texts... He is SEEN as someone much more closely connected to fringe Christianity than is comfortable for Muslims.

First did you notice that neither Mohammed is named but also Muslims are not referred to by name? That is significant. In fact we do not have the term Muslim used until then 690s. Here Mohammed is viewed like a heretical Christian, something that other early Christian writers, such a John of Damascus also do.

It is also factual that neither Jews nor Christians accepted Mohammed's claims in numbers. So overall , we just get a report, facts and views together.

Now, you particularly object to the "keys to paradise" reference. This is a Christian term, linked to Matthew's gospel where Peter is given the power to forgive and retain sin.

I agree that Mohammed did not claim to be able to forgive anything, in fact forgiveness was pretty much on the bottom of his list. But he did, many times, claim that the ONLY religion acceptable involves following him and accepting him as prophet and undisputed leader. Any people who did not could forfeit life and property, and even eternal salvation. So it is perfectly accurate that Mohammed presented himself as the key to paradise. After all, to this day, Muslims believe that only Muslims can enter paradise. So Mohammed clearly IS the "key to paradise" for Muslims. The part that the source got wrong when it suggested he merely HAD the keys.
No it is a Greek text, and a polemical Christian tract. It is a fiction. This is undisputed in scholarly circles. Islam isn't the principal target, neither was it said so. That is why the passage is short, and doesn't speak in details of "Muslims". It is recognized that such polemical Christian writings have always been garbled representations of Islam, even much later texts. In that polemic, Islam is just a collateral system, along with others that are the main target such as Judaism, who fail in the face of the Christian argument. The tract is addressed to Christians hence the use of Christian terminology such as the "keys to paradise" to make a point that such authority rests only with the apostolic church, not with any other new movement.

Neither Islam nor the prophet said that eternal salvation is the prerogative of Muslims.

User avatar
Takeiteasynow
Posts: 786
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 8:24 pm

Re: In search for the historical Mohammed

Post by Takeiteasynow »

Well anyone can call things. You said that the animosity of Mohammed against Jews is a myth. Your claim, your burden of proof.
Surely not. I simply reject a historiographical claim for which is no evidence. But it doesn't really matter- once you identified the historical Muhammad most claims can be validated or rejected instantly.
Abraham= H'ammu'rab(b)i, Historical Muhammad=Benjamin of Tiberias. Islam: Syncretic Israelite Yahwishm Deity: nameless, epithets Dsr, El Qutbay, ʼAlâhâ, Allāh. Ka'ba: Kutha => Samaria => Petra=> Makkah. Hijrah 622: Petra => Kerak

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: In search for the historical Mohammed

Post by manfred »

Neither Islam nor the prophet said that eternal salvation is the prerogative of Muslims.
I am glad you realise there is a difference between "Islam" and "the prophet". "THE" prophet.... as in reality there is only that one in Islam.

And we all know how unbelievers have been assigned to before birth, even created for, hell fire, how they are the worst of animals... and so on...

The Qur'an says this
Whoever disbelieves—upon him is [the consequence of] his disbelief. And whoever does righteousness—they are for themselves preparing—that He may reward those who have believed and done righteous deeds out of His bounty. Indeed, He does not like the disbelievers. [Qur’an 30:44-45]
You need Islam and "good deeds", as defined by Mohammed (for example murdering infidels)
[For such is the state of the disbelievers], until, when death comes to one of them, he says, “My Lord, send me back that I might do righteousness in that which I left behind.” No! It is only a word he is saying; and behind them is a barrier until the Day they are resurrected. [Qur’an 23:99-100]
Whoever does righteousness—it is for his [own] soul; and whoever does evil [does so] against it. And your Lord is not ever unjust to [His] servants. [Qur’an 41:46]
Allah's justice is onl for his servants.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: In search for the historical Mohammed

Post by manfred »

Takeiteasynow wrote:
Well anyone can call things. You said that the animosity of Mohammed against Jews is a myth. Your claim, your burden of proof.
Surely not. I simply reject a historiographical claim for which is no evidence. But it doesn't really matter- once you identified the historical Muhammad most claims can be validated or rejected instantly.

Perhaps we should go right back to basic ideas as to what we should call "evidence"...

Most people live their short lives, they die, they are remembers for a time by family and friends, and eventually they are forgotten, it is as if they never were here. Billions of people are like that. There is a place in London called Black Heath. It looks like a park, but it really is a huge mass grave where people who died of the black death were buried. We don;t know anything about them, and yet surely each of them were real people.

The further a person lived in the past the harder it becomes to get evidence together.... even for famous people.... Socrates? We know about this man from Plato, writing quite some time after his death. There are not contemporary artefacts, inscriptions and things. So is he real or not?

So when it come to the man Mohammed, where does that leave us? I would not dismiss any sources out of hand, and make it a requirement that we MUST for all things have list of corroborating sources. We do not have much about Mohammed, Islam, Muslims, Mecca or the Qur'an from the days he is meant to have lived. We only have later material. This is a problem. But it does NOT mean everything in the sources must be false. It just means what we can say with CERTAINTY is not a lot.

A great deal of historical sources have an "agenda". Take the gospels. Of course they have an agenda way beyond telling the story of Jesus. Does that mean ALL of it should simply be ignored?

Even in Islamic accounts of Mohammed we should be able to find snippets of the real man.

To me this like having a big pile of shards. Pieces of lots of pots. We want to find all the pieces of only one pot.... worse, some fit properly but other pieces have been worn down and only fit a bit.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

Eagle
Posts: 2093
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:37 pm

Re: In search for the historical Mohammed

Post by Eagle »

manfred wrote:
Neither Islam nor the prophet said that eternal salvation is the prerogative of Muslims.
I am glad you realise there is a difference between "Islam" and "the prophet". "THE" prophet.... as in reality there is only that one in Islam.

And we all know how unbelievers have been assigned to before birth, even created for, hell fire, how they are the worst of animals... and so on...

The Qur'an says this
Whoever disbelieves—upon him is [the consequence of] his disbelief. And whoever does righteousness—they are for themselves preparing—that He may reward those who have believed and done righteous deeds out of His bounty. Indeed, He does not like the disbelievers. [Qur’an 30:44-45]
You need Islam and "good deeds", as defined by Mohammed (for example murdering infidels)
[For such is the state of the disbelievers], until, when death comes to one of them, he says, “My Lord, send me back that I might do righteousness in that which I left behind.” No! It is only a word he is saying; and behind them is a barrier until the Day they are resurrected. [Qur’an 23:99-100]
Whoever does righteousness—it is for his [own] soul; and whoever does evil [does so] against it. And your Lord is not ever unjust to [His] servants. [Qur’an 41:46]
Allah's justice is onl for his servants.
Nothing above about salvation being the sole prerogative of Muslims. We read on the other hand verses like
[But] they are not all alike: among the followers of earlier revelation there are upright people, who recite God's messages throughout the night, and prostrate themselves [before Him]. They believe in God and the Last Day, and enjoin the doing of what is right and forbid the doing of what is wrong, and vie with one another in doing good works: and these are among the righteous. And whatever good they do, they shall never be denied the reward thereof: for, God has full knowledge of those who are conscious of Him.

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: In search for the historical Mohammed

Post by manfred »

pst.... nothing there don't look at the evidence.... trust in me.... says eagle....


Image

If you do not need to become a Muslim to be saved, then Islam is pointless....

If your religion is "accepted" from you not matter what it is, why kill an apostate?
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

User avatar
SAM
Posts: 4353
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:31 pm
Location: Arasy

Re: In search for the historical Mohammed

Post by SAM »

As I said before, no matter how hard you demeaning on Muhammad. You will not succeed. In contrast to Christianity, which is easily ridiculed by atheists and made Christianity a laughing stock. :lol:
Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with thee unless thou follow their form of religion.
Say: "The Guidance of Allah,-that is the (only) Guidance."
(2:120)

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: In search for the historical Mohammed

Post by manfred »

Eaid Mubarak, SAM ...

do you think looking for evidence for the historical Mohammed is "demeaning" him? You rather build your religion on lies?
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

User avatar
Takeiteasynow
Posts: 786
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 8:24 pm

Re: In search for the historical Mohammed

Post by Takeiteasynow »

So when it come to the man Mohammed, where does that leave us? I would not dismiss any sources out of hand, and make it a requirement that we MUST for all things have list of corroborating sources. We do not have much about Mohammed, Islam, Muslims, Mecca or the Qur'an from the days he is meant to have lived. We only have later material. This is a problem. But it does NOT mean everything in the sources must be false. It just means what we can say with CERTAINTY is not a lot.
Undoubtedly many claims from these corroborating sources are relevant so it's all about understanding the context. Here we like to save time - prefer not to analyze each claim or its relation with the entire context - by flushing historiography down the toilet and start from scratch.
Abraham= H'ammu'rab(b)i, Historical Muhammad=Benjamin of Tiberias. Islam: Syncretic Israelite Yahwishm Deity: nameless, epithets Dsr, El Qutbay, ʼAlâhâ, Allāh. Ka'ba: Kutha => Samaria => Petra=> Makkah. Hijrah 622: Petra => Kerak

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: In search for the historical Mohammed

Post by manfred »

Well, if we put all the later sources on one side for now, then I am only aware of THREE that possibly come from the time Mohammed lived. The letter of protection for monasteries, but that is most likely a desperate attempt by monks to keep Muslims off their backs, a forgery... the "constitution of Medina" which similarly is unlikely to be genuine, as it was not mentioned in the hadith when it should have been as an important event. How Mohammed cleaned his backside was important enough to record, but this "constitution" was not?
Most likely, some Jews, like the monks, concocted that story and the document to get protection from Muslim raiders. The doctrina Iacobi reference is from the right time (just), but lacks enough detail to provide a lot of information. Also, of course, it is "what people say" rather than a source from someone close to Mohammed.

Do you know of other sources?
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

User avatar
Takeiteasynow
Posts: 786
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 8:24 pm

Re: In search for the historical Mohammed

Post by Takeiteasynow »

Unfortunately I don't. The issue with the Doctrina Iacobi is that its apologetic material doesn't really match the archeological record which indicates some kind of 'Woodstock festival period' for Abrahamic religions in the Levant between 630 and 706 AD. This would require some kind or organized collaboration but a constitution is unlikely as these religions didn't have centralized bodies in the 7th century.

Most likely scenario is that a shared agenda (the struggle against Byzantine domination in the Levant and it's trinity doctrine) led to the foundation of a 'secular' Semitic state with support of Messianic Arab Jews, Samaritan Jews and Arab (Nazirite) Christians in 622 which had it capital in Kharkha (modern Al-Kerak, Jordan -Arabic name Medina). This is the place where Byzantines recorded the first battle with the Arab-Messianic Jewish forces (629). This state may have had a constitution but is certainly not of Islamic nature.

The best sources to identify the historical Muhammad are of secondary nature and of Tiberian and Persian origin - the transformation of Messianic Judaism into a codified religion (Islam) started with the brilliant plan of Persian king Khosrau II to help Messianic Jews to conquer Jerusalem (610-614) like the German Imperial Army helped Lenin to grab power in 1918. Unfortunately it didn't work out as planned as his Arab Lakhmid support troops took control of the Sassanian empire in 630 AD.
Abraham= H'ammu'rab(b)i, Historical Muhammad=Benjamin of Tiberias. Islam: Syncretic Israelite Yahwishm Deity: nameless, epithets Dsr, El Qutbay, ʼAlâhâ, Allāh. Ka'ba: Kutha => Samaria => Petra=> Makkah. Hijrah 622: Petra => Kerak

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: In search for the historical Mohammed

Post by manfred »

Well, "Medina" unfortunately is not a very original name... it really just means a (walled) city. You find that is how the word is still used in much of the Arab world. Almost every city of any age has a "medina" , an old (once or still) walled in part, usually with a maze of narrow lanes (to keep the sun out). Within that some have a fortress or keep, the Qasbah.... a last refuge in times of attacks.

So where did Mohammed settle after he left his home town?

The Qur'an is not helping here, as is also uses "al-Medina" which is ambiguous, and could mean either the specific city of Medina, or simple "the city".

For example we have 9:101
وممن حولكم من الأعراب منافقون ومن أهل المدينة مردوا على النفاق لا تعلمهم نحن نعلمهم سنعذبهم مرتين ثم يردون إلى عذاب عظيم
The أهل المدينة could be "the people of Medina" or "the town people" and translators use both. The "city of Medina" of course fits better with the Muslim narrative.... the treacherous people of Medina which Allah will punish. But is that just wishful thinking by Muslims or not?
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

User avatar
Takeiteasynow
Posts: 786
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 8:24 pm

Re: In search for the historical Mohammed

Post by Takeiteasynow »

Well, "Medina" unfortunately is not a very original name... it really just means a (walled) city. You find that is how the word is still used in much of the Arab world. Almost every city of any age has a "medina" , an old (once or still) walled in part, usually with a maze of narrow lanes (to keep the sun out). Within that some have a fortress or keep, the Qasbah.... a last refuge in times of attacks.
Sure, but the word of Medina is of Aramaic origin - it's career as Arabic loan word started much later.
So where did Mohammed settle after he left his home town?
After joining the Nazirite forces from Isfahan Mohammad left the city Tiberias in March 614 and settled down in Jerusalem is June 614. But that's probably not what you mean: after the Sassanians kicked Mop out of Jerusalem in 616 he moved to Petra - before moving to 'Medina'/Kerak in 622.

And before you ask more questions - this is my last post in this thread.
Abraham= H'ammu'rab(b)i, Historical Muhammad=Benjamin of Tiberias. Islam: Syncretic Israelite Yahwishm Deity: nameless, epithets Dsr, El Qutbay, ʼAlâhâ, Allāh. Ka'ba: Kutha => Samaria => Petra=> Makkah. Hijrah 622: Petra => Kerak

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: In search for the historical Mohammed

Post by manfred »

:cry: OH? why?
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

Post Reply