Historicity of Muhammad _Did Muhammad Exist?,

His life, his examples and his psychology
yeezevee
Posts: 6547
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:17 pm

Historicity of Muhammad _Did Muhammad Exist?,

Post by yeezevee »

Did Muhammad Exist?, A book by by Robert Spencer







Last edited by yeezevee on Sat Jun 14, 2014 10:45 am, edited 1 time in total.

yeezevee
Posts: 6547
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:17 pm

Re: Did Muhammad Exist?, A book by by Robert Spencer

Post by yeezevee »






yeezevee
Posts: 6547
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:17 pm

Re: Did Muhammad Exist?, A book by by Robert Spencer

Post by yeezevee »




User avatar
marduk
Posts: 1524
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 2:39 pm

Re: Did Muhammad Exist?, A book by by Robert Spencer

Post by marduk »

It does make sense. How could an international trader not be able to read and write? That's what Abu Bakr was and he could read, so how could Muhammad have carried on the same business as a trader without the ability to read and write? Then there's the matter of it being written that Muhammad was buried in Aisha's house, along with Bakr and Umar, and yet nobody seeming to know where Aisha's house was. Wouldn't Muslims know exactly where Aisha's house had been? No grave means no body, meaning no Muhammad. There is no body of Jesus but he is said to have gone to India and his grave site is known to be there. Muhammad died right in Mecca. How hard could it be to find his grave? Is it credible that the Muslims would have simply forgotten where Aisha lived?

Also, the Night Journey story is clearly based on the Greek myth of Bellerophon, who captured Pegasus and rode him as a flying horse. My guess is that Abu Bakr wrote the Quran. He was well traveled and would have known pieces of various scriptures from the places he traveled to, like Syria. In fact, the Night Journey story tells us that the Quran was written well after 705 AD, when Al-Aqsa mosque was built. The Quran mentions the farthest mosque, apparently in reference to Jerusalem. The mosque did not exist during Muhamad's supposed lifetime so that part of the Quran could not have been written before 705 AD and more likely the late 700s early 800s, when knowledge was forgotten about exactly when the mosque was built.

User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Did Muhammad Exist?, A book by by Robert Spencer

Post by skynightblaze »

I already see problems while reading his book. I see he is trusting non muslim sources as if they are beyond error. I can show numerous discrepancies within non muslims writers about islam so it is clear that neither are non muslim sources sufficient enough to judge islamic sources Just to give an example Muawiya is painted as a thug who followed Muhammad's steps like threatening his neighbors by writing letters by a non muslim writer named Sebeos while Muawiya is portrayed as a saint who respected other religions by John Bar Penkaye so is it logical to derive a conclusion about islam from non muslim sources alone?

just ran a search through the pdf and could not find this particular quote...This is missing from his book. This one talks about existence of Muhammad...

A Record Of The Arab Conquest Of Syria, 637 CE / 15-16 AH

... and in January, they took the word for their lives (did) [the sons of] Emesa [i.e., ̣Hiṃs)], and many villages were ruined with killing by [the Arabs of] Mụhammad and a great number of people were killed and captives [were taken] from Galilee as far as Bēth [...] and those Arabs pitched camp beside [Damascus?] [...] and we saw everywhe[re...] and o[l]ive oil which they brought and them. And on the t[wenty six]th of May went S[ac[ella]rius]... cattle [...] [...] from the vicinity of Emesa and the Romans chased them [...] and on the tenth [of August] the Romans fled from the vicinity of Damascus [...] many [people] some 10,000. And at the turn [of the ye]ar the Romans came; and on the twentieth of August in the year n[ine hundred and forty-]seven there gathered in Gabitha [...] the Romans and great many people were ki[lled of] [the R]omans, ome fifty thousand [...][21]
[/color]
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

yeezevee
Posts: 6547
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:17 pm

Re: Did Muhammad Exist?, A book by by Robert Spencer

Post by yeezevee »

skynightblaze wrote:I already see problems while reading his book. I see he is trusting non muslim sources as if they are beyond error. I can show numerous discrepancies within non muslims writers about islam so it is clear that neither are non muslim sources sufficient enough to judge islamic sources Just to give an example Muawiya is painted as a thug who followed Muhammad's steps like threatening his neighbors by writing letters by a non muslim writer named Sebeos while Muawiya is portrayed as a saint who respected other religions by John Bar Penkaye so is it logical to derive a conclusion about islam from non muslim sources alone?
just ran a search through the pdf and could not find this particular quote...This is missing from his book. This one talks about existence of Muhammad...
A Record Of The Arab Conquest Of Syria, 637 CE / 15-16 AH

... and in January, they took the word for their lives (did) [the sons of] Emesa [i.e., ̣Hiṃs)], and many villages were ruined with killing by [the Arabs of] Mụhammad and a great number of people were killed and captives [were taken] from Galilee as far as Bēth [...] and those Arabs pitched camp beside [Damascus?] [...] and we saw everywhe[re...] and o[l]ive oil which they brought and them. And on the t[wenty six]th of May went S[ac[ella]rius]... cattle [...] [...] from the vicinity of Emesa and the Romans chased them [...] and on the tenth [of August] the Romans fled from the vicinity of Damascus [...] many [people] some 10,000. And at the turn [of the ye]ar the Romans came; and on the twentieth of August in the year n[ine hundred and forty-]seven there gathered in Gabitha [...] the Romans and great many people were ki[lled of] [the R]omans, ome fifty thousand [...][21]
That is all right., as long as you have freedom to question, It doesn't matter what people write and say. Well I would like you to add more references and resources on this subject SKB ., I do believe Muhammad the character depicted in Quran and hadith did not exist as one character but could be stories written by Muslim bums on Muslim rulers of that time., Multi-Muhaamads put together.......

Any ways add your references SKB..
Last edited by yeezevee on Tue May 01, 2012 11:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Did Muhammad Exist?, A book by by Robert Spencer

Post by skynightblaze »

Yeezevee wrote: That is all right., as long as you have freedom to question, It doesn't matter what people write and say. Well I would you to add more references and resources on this subject SKB ., I do believe Muhammad the character depicted in Quran and hadith didn't exist as one character but multiple fellows together.......

Any ways add your references SKB.
I will compile my comments on the book on this thread. There is also a thread started in Lounge by Ygalg. This issue is very complicated in my opinion and I still do not deny that I could be wrong but however my opinion is that it is very difficult to form a concrete opinion that islamic scriptures are totally fabricated. Many of the non muslim writings confirm with characteristics of Muhammad and muslims mentioned in the ahadith and sometimes even the quran .

Anyway I would not be angry with Spencer (as I would be with pissy Cat) even If i disagree with him because he is not trying to protect quran here. :lol: If Muhammad did not exist I am happy with that conclusion too because it would ultimately help in wiping out islam in entirety which is what i would like to see.
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Did Muhammad Exist?, A book by by Robert Spencer

Post by skynightblaze »

Anyway here is the background of that note.
Islamic awareness wrote: This much faded note is preserved on folio 1 of BL Add. 14,461, a codex containing the Gospel accord to Matthew and the Gospel according to Mark. This note appears to have been penned soon after the battle of Gabitha (636 CE) at which the Arabs inflicted crushing defeat of the Byzantines. Wright was first to draw the attention to the fragment and suggested that "it seems to be a nearly contemporary notice",[19] a view which was also endorsed by Nöldeke.[20] The purpose of jotting this note in the book of Gospels appears to be commemorative as the author appears to have realized how momentous the events of his time were. The words "we saw" are positive evidence that the author was a contemporary. The author also talks about olive oil, cattle, ruined villages, suggesting that he belonged to peasant stock, i.e., parish priest or a monk who could read and write. It is worthwhile cautioning that the condition of the text is fragmentary and many of the readings unclear or disputable. The lacunae are supplied in square brackets.
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

User avatar
marduk
Posts: 1524
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 2:39 pm

Re: Did Muhammad Exist?, A book by by Robert Spencer

Post by marduk »

More like Abu Bakr attacked Syria in 635 AD. Where was Muhammad? Didn't seem to be around. That's cuz he didn't exist. Bakr himself was "Muhammad". Saying that Muhammad dies in 632 is a weak excuse.
The momentum generated by victories against dissidents and breakaway regions left Islamic warriors restless and aggressive. Moreover, Arabia was in an economic recession, trade having come to a standstill with ten years of war, and some of Islam's warriors were hungry for booty. They began making raids into Mesopotamia -- an alternative to raiding "the faithful" in Arabia. Mesopotamia was still nominally under the rule by the Persian Sassanid dynasty. It was three years since Constantinople and the Persians had ended their ruinous war. Anarchy reigned in the Sassanid Empire. The Muslim raiders into Mesopotamia found little resistance, and success encouraged more and bigger raids, launching one of the greatest imperialisms of all time. The caliph, Abu Bakr, went along with it. Finding Islam's warriors joyous in their victories, he declared a holy war on their behalf.

Bakr sent troops northwest into Palestine. In 634, at Ajnadia, about twenty miles west of Jerusalem, in another of history's great battles, Islam's army defeated an army sent by Constantinople. There the Muslim army benefited from a weakened Constantinople and from their higher morale and superior mobility.

Bakr died without learning of the great victory in Palestine, and the successor he had chosen, Umar ibn-al-Khattab, became caliph. Umar (Omar) had been an early convert to Islam and had been one of Muhammad's closest companions. His succession had been a recommendation to the Islamic community, and from that community came a ratification of sorts but without any established mechanism for expression of popular will.

Like Bakr, Umar lived frugally. It is said that he owned only one shirt and slept on a bed of palm leaves. His rule began with the siege of Damascus -- Islamic forces still combating Constantinople's imperial forces. Six months later, in September 635, Damascus capitulated, and the usual treaty of empires was made with the city, the conquerors promising the people of Damascus protection in exchange for taxes.
http://www.fsmitha.com/h3/islam08.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

yeezevee
Posts: 6547
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:17 pm

Re: Did Muhammad Exist?, A book by by Robert Spencer

Post by yeezevee »

marduk wrote:More like Abu Bakr attacked Syria in 635 AD. Where was Muhammad? Didn't seem to be around. That's cuz he didn't exist. Bakr himself was "Muhammad".
..................
http://www.fsmitha.com/h3/islam08.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I am not sure what kind of resources/references were used to get to that conclusion in that link ., That is not a necessary as that Alleged Muhammad died condition 3 years earlier to that date 635 AD.. let me briefly put that time scale of all these guys the Caliphs and Muhammad together here.
Alleged life of Muhammad .. Prophet of Islam
571: Birth of the Holy Prophet. Year of the Elephant. Invasion of Makkah by Abraha the Viceroy of Yemen, his retreat.
577: The Holy Prophet visits Madina with his mother. Death of his mother.
580: Death of Abdul Muttalib, the grandfather of the Holy Prophet.
583: The Holy Prophet's journey to Syria in the company of his uncle Abu Talib. His meeting with the monk Bahira at Bisra who foretells of his prophethood.
586: The Holy Prophet participates in the war of Fijar.
591: The Holy Prophet becomes an active member of "Hilful Fudul", a league for the relief of the distressed.
594: The Holy Prophet becomes the Manager of the business of Lady Khadija, and leads her trade caravan to Syria and back.
595: The Holy Prophet marries Hadrat Khadija.
605: The Holy Prophet arbitrates in a dispute among the Quraish about the placing of the Black Stone in the Kaaba.
610: The first revelation in the cave at Mt. Hira. The Holy Prophet is commissioned as the Messenger of God.
613: Declaration at Mt. Sara inviting the general public to Islam.
614: Invitation to the Hashimites to accept Islam.
615: Persecution of the Muslims by the Quraish. A party of Muslims leaves for Abyssinia.
616: Second Hijrah to Abysinnia.
617: Social boycott of the Hashimites and the Holy Prophet by the Quraish. The Hashimites are shut up in a glen outside Makkah.
619: Lifting of the boycott. Deaths of Abu Talib and Hadrat Khadija. Year of sorrow.
620: Journey to Taif. Ascension to the heavens.
621: First pledge at Aqaba.
622: Second pledge at Aqaba. The Holy Prophet and the Muslims migrate to Yathrib.
623: Nakhla expedition.
624: Battle of Badr. Expulsion of the Bani Qainuqa Jews from Madina.
625: Battle of Uhud. Massacre of 70 Muslims at Bir Mauna. Expulsion of Banu Nadir Jews from Madina. Second expedition of Badr.
626: Expedition of Banu Mustaliq.
627: Battle of the Trench. Expulsion of Banu Quraiza Jews.
628: Truce of Hudaibiya. Expedition to Khyber. The Holy Prophet addresses letters to various heads of states.
629: The Holy Prophet performs the pilgrimage at Makkah. Expedition to Muta (Romans).
630: Conquest of Makkah. Battles of Hunsin, Auras, and Taif.
631: Expedition to Tabuk. Year of Deputations.
632: Farewell pilgrimage at Makkah.
632: Death of the Holy Prophet.Election of Hadrat Abu Bakr as the Caliph. Usamah leads expedition to Syria. Battles of Zu Qissa and Abraq. Battles of Buzakha, Zafar and Naqra. Campaigns against Bani Tamim and Musailima, the Liar.
633: Campaigns in Bahrain, Oman, Mahrah Yemen, and Hadramaut. Raids in Iraq. Battles of Kazima, Mazar, Walaja, Ulleis, Hirah, Anbar, Ein at tamr, Daumatul Jandal and Firaz.
634: Battles of Basra, Damascus and Ajnadin. Death of Hadrat Abu Bakr. Hadrat Umar Farooq becomes the Caliph. Battles of Namaraq and Saqatia.
635: Battle of Bridge. Battle of Buwaib. Conquest of Damascus. Battle of Fahl.
636: Battle of Yermuk. Battle of Qadsiyia. Conquest of Madain.
637: Conquest of Syria. Fall of Jerusalem. Battle of Jalula.
638: Conquest of Jazirah.
639: Conquest of Khuizistan. Advance into Egypt.
640: Capture of the post of Caesaria in Syria. Conquest of Shustar and Jande Sabur in Persia. Battle of Babylon in Egypt.
641: Battle of Nihawand. Conquest Of Alexandria in Egypt.
642: Battle of Rayy in Persia. Conquest of Egypt. Foundation of Fustat.
643: Conquest of Azarbaijan and Tabaristan (Russia).
644: Conquest of Fars, Kerman, Sistan, Mekran and Kharan.Martyrdom of Hadrat Umar. Hadrat Othman becomes the Caliph.
645: Campaigns in Fats.
646: Campaigns in Khurasan, Armeain and Asia Minor.
647: Campaigns in North Africa. Conquest of the island of Cypress.
648: Campaigns against the Byzantines.
651: Naval battle of the Masts against the Byzantines.
652: Discontentment and disaffection against the rule of Hadrat Othman.
656: Martyrdom of Hadrat Othman. Hadrat Ali becomes the Caliph. Battle of the Camel.
657: Hadrat Ali shifts the capital from Madina to Kufa. Battle of Siffin. Arbitration proceedings at Daumaut ul Jandal.
658: Battle of Nahrawan.
659: Conquest of Egypt by Mu'awiyah.
660: Hadrat Ali recaptures Hijaz and Yemen from Mu'awiyah. Mu'awiyah declares himself as the Caliph at Damascus.
661: Martyrdom of Hadrat Ali. Accession of Hadrat Hasan and his abdication. Mu'awiyah becomes the sole Caliph.
So briefly

Muhammad died in the year of 632, Abu Bakr, Father in-Law of Muhammad becomes Caliph
Abu Bakr Died in the year 634 Umar Farooq another Father in-law of Muhammad becomes caliph
Umar Farooq was killed in the year 644 Othman the Son in-law of Muhammad becomes the Caliph
Othman was killed in the year 656 Ali 2nd Son-In law of Muhammad becomes the Caliph
Ali was killed in the year 661 and Mu'awiyah becomes the sole Caliph of Islamic Society..


That is the life of early Islam...

Idesigner
Posts: 1867
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 6:51 pm

Re: Did Muhammad Exist?, A book by by Robert Spencer

Post by Idesigner »

skynightblaze wrote:I already see problems while reading his book. I see he is trusting non muslim sources as if they are beyond error. I can show numerous discrepancies within non muslims writers about islam so it is clear that neither are non muslim sources sufficient enough to judge islamic sources Just to give an example Muawiya is painted as a thug who followed Muhammad's steps like threatening his neighbors by writing letters by a non muslim writer named Sebeos while Muawiya is portrayed as a saint who respected other religions by John Bar Penkaye so is it logical to derive a conclusion about islam from non muslim sources alone?

just ran a search through the pdf and could not find this particular quote...This is missing from his book. This one talks about existence of Muhammad...

A Record Of The Arab Conquest Of Syria, 637 CE / 15-16 AH

... and in January, they took the word for their lives (did) [the sons of] Emesa [i.e., ̣Hiṃs)], and many villages were ruined with killing by [the Arabs of] Mụhammad and a great number of people were killed and captives [were taken] from Galilee as far as Bēth [...] and those Arabs pitched camp beside [Damascus?] [...] and we saw everywhe[re...] and o[l]ive oil which they brought and them. And on the t[wenty six]th of May went S[ac[ella]rius]... cattle [...] [...] from the vicinity of Emesa and the Romans chased them [...] and on the tenth [of August] the Romans fled from the vicinity of Damascus [...] many [people] some 10,000. And at the turn [of the ye]ar the Romans came; and on the twentieth of August in the year n[ine hundred and forty-]seven there gathered in Gabitha [...] the Romans and great many people were ki[lled of] [the R]omans, ome fifty thousand [...][21]
[/color]


Dear SNB,

Here Spencer has a point. He is mostly talking about Koran and Islamic traditions . There was no contemporary muslim source in existence for atleast 60 years after the death of Prophet. Abu Anas, Ibn Ishaq and others mentioned Mohemmed some 60-80 years later. We dont have any authentic Islamic sources talking about Koran and other traditions even after 60 years following the death of Mohemmed. All we know about Mohemmed is from two sources Abu Anasa and Ibn Ishaq who wrote Mo's biography.There were no coins, no authentic archeologic sites to relie upon.Warriors like Abu Bakr were not chanting Allaho Akbar. We dont have even a copy of Koran from days of Othman. Spencer trust Pagan sources because he cant find any authetic islamic sources from time of Mohemmed.Only way we can trust that manuscript you mentioned if we can do carbon dating on it and proves to be +- 30 years from from death of Abu Bakr.

Spencer is applyng same criteria many detractors of Christianity apply. No one can prove that historic christ existed as it is mentioned in Gospel. All accounts of Gospel about Christ are full of contradictions. Full fledged Christianity may have been product of fertile imagination of St. Paul who himself might have been a mythological character, a hard core Jew civil servant employed by Romans.

Its very likely that Mohemmed we know from Ibn Ishaq etc. was a composite character. All prophets, messangers, seers, philosopher of past survived as a composite character or outright myths. All religions were later mythologized by faithfuls, Islam is no exception. No matter how many non muslims they kill to prove the antiquity or authenticity of their faith.

On other hand I suspect Spencer is becoming Koran only muslim. :D Guy looks muslim with his beard. :D Looks like Koran only guys like Mesmorial can learn lot from Spncer. If there was no historic Mohemmed why to blame him for pedophilia, rapes, looting and killing others. :cool:
Last edited by Idesigner on Wed May 02, 2012 2:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Did Muhammad Exist?, A book by by Robert Spencer

Post by skynightblaze »

I am going to quote Spencer from his book . I disagree with him on some points regarding writings of Doctrina Jacobi which I have selectively quoted below..

Spencer uses a Byzantine source named Doctrina Jacobi to claim that Muhammad did not exist until 634 Ad.
Spoiler! :
Doctrina Jacobi wrote: When the candidatus [that is, a member of the Byzantine imperial guard] was killed by the Saracens [Sarakenoi], I was at Caesarea and I set off by boat to Sykamina. People were saying “the candidatus has been killed,” and we Jews were overjoyed. And they were saying that the prophet had appeared, coming with the Saracens, and that he was proclaiming the advent of the anointed one, the Christ who was to come. I, having arrived at Sykamina, stopped by a certain old man well-versed in scriptures, and I said to him: “What can you tell me about the prophet
who has appeared with the Saracens?” He replied, groaning deeply: “He is false, for the prophets do not come armed with a sword. Truly they are works of anarchy being committed today and I fear that the first Christ to come, whom the Christians worship, was the one sent by God and we instead are preparing to receive the Antichrist. Indeed, Isaiah said that the Jews would retain a perverted and hardened heart until all the earth should
be devastated. But you go, master Abraham, and find out about the prophet who has appeared.” So I, Abraham, inquired and heard from those who had met him that there was no truth to be found in the so-called prophet, only the shedding of men’s blood. He says also that he has the keys of paradise, which is incredible.
[/quote]
Spencer wrote: In this case, “incredible” means “not credible.” One thing that can be established from this is that the Arabian invaders who conquered Palestine in 635 (the “Saracens”) came bearing news of a new prophet, one who was “armed with a sword.” But in the Doctrina Jacobi this unnamed prophet is still alive, traveling with his armies, whereas Muhammad is supposed to have died in 632. What’s more, this Saracen prophet, rather than proclaiming that he was Allah’s last prophet (cf. Qur’an 33:40), was “proclaiming the advent of the anointed one, the Christ who was to come.” This was a reference to an expected Jewish Messiah, not to the Jesus Christ of Christianity (Christ means “anointed one” or “Messiah” in Greek).
It is claimed from the quote of Doctrina JAcobi that Muhammad was alive by 635 Ad however Theophanes who was born around 760 AD wrote that Muhammad died around 629 AD to 630 AD. So again my question is who is correct here? Theophanes or Doctrina Jacobi? Please read the quote from Theophanes in the spoiler below..
Spoiler! :
Theophanes wrote: In this year died Muhammad, the leader and false prophet of the Saracens, after appointing his kinsman Abu Bakr to his chieftainship. At the same time his repute spread abroad and everyone was frightened. At the beginning of his advent the misguided Jews thought he was the Messiah who is awaited by them, so that some of their leaders joined him and accepted his religion while forsaking that of Moses, who saw God. Those who did so were ten in number, and they remained with him until his murder. But when they saw him eating camel meat, they realised that he was not the one they thought him to be, and were at a loss what to do; being afraid to abjure his religion, those wretched men taught him illicit things directed against us, Christians, and remained with him.

I consider it necessary to give an account of this man’s origins. He was descended from a very widespread tribe, that of Ishmael, son of Abraham; for Nizaros, descendant of Ishmael, is recognised as the father of them all. He begot two sons, Moudaros and Rabias. Moudaros begot Kourasos, Kaisos, Themimes, Asados and others unknown. All of them dwelt in the Midianite desert and kept cattle, themselves living in tents. There are also those farther away who are not of their tribe, but of that of Lektan, the so-called Amanites, that is Himerites. And some of them traded on their camels. Being destitute and an orphan, the aforesaid Muhammad decided to enter the service of a rich woman who was a relative of his, called Khandija[44], as a hired worker with a view to trading by camel in Egypt and Palestine. Little by little he became bolder and ingratiated himself with that woman, who was a widow, took her as a wife, and gained possession of her camels and her substance. Whenever he came to Palestine he consorted with Jews and Christians and sought from them certain scriptural matters. He was also afflicted with epilepsy. When his wife became aware of this, she was greatly distressed, inasmuch as she, a noblewoman, had married a man such as he, who was not only poor, but also an epileptic. He tried deceitfully to placate her by saying, ‘I keep seeing a vision of a certain angel called Gabriel, and being unable to bear his sight, I faint and fall down’.

Now, she had a certain monk living there, a friend of hers (who had been exiled for his depraved doctrine), and she related everything to him, including the angel’s name. Wishing to satisfy her, he said to her, ‘He has spoken the truth, for this is the angel who is sent to all the prophets.’ When she had heard the words of the false monk she was the first to believe in Muhammad and proclaim to other women of her tribe that he was a prophet. Thus, the report spread from women to men, and first to Abu Bakr, whom he left as his successor. This heresy prevailed in the region of Ethribos, in the last resort by war: at first secretly, for ten years, and by war another ten, and openly nine.

He taught his subjects that he who kills an enemy or is killed by an enemy goes to Paradise; and he said that this paradise was one of carnal eating and drinking and intercourse with women, and had a river of wine, honey and milk, and that the women were not like the ones down here, but different ones, and that the intercourse was long-lasting and the pleasure continuous; and other things full of stupidity. Also, that men should feel sympathy for one another and help those who are wronged. (From the Year 6122 (629/630 AD)


There are plenty of things that Theophanes mentions which confirms with Islamic tradition however he contradicts Doctrina Jacobi on the death of Muhammad as he places Muhammad;s death in 629 Ad - 630 AD as against Doctrina Jacobi which suggests that Muhammad was alive by 635 Ad. It is therefore not completely logical to use non muslim sources alone in drawing conclusions. Whenever a non muslim source confirms with islamic source we can be sure of that report because it eliminates bias , if any, on both the sides however whenever there is a contradiction then either the muslim report could be forged or even the non muslim. It is confirmed by both muslim as well as non muslim scriptures that muhammad was a criminal and therefore I claim him to be criminal.
Robert Spencer wrote: The prophet described in the Doctrina Jacobi “says also that he has the keys of paradise,” which, we’re told, “is incredible.” But it is not only incredible; it is also completely absent from the Islamic tradition, which never depicts Muhammad as claiming to hold the keys of paradise.
It is not completely absent from the islamic tradition. Here are the ahadith that are close to what is described by Doctrina Jacobi..

Mafatih al-janna shahadatu an La ilaha illallah. "The keys to Paradise are the witnessing that there is no god but Allah." [13] It is confirmed by the next hadith.

12a. Li kulli shay'in miftahun wa miftahu al-jannati shahadatu an La ilaha illallah. "Everything has its key, and the key to Paradise is the witnessing that there is no god but Allah."


Soures of the above ahadith are mentioned in the link below..

http://www.sunnah.org/aqida/forty_hadit ... tahlil.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Spencer says the following in response to if something
Spencer wrote: The document’s departures from Islamic tradition regarding the date of Muhammad’s death and the content of his teaching could be understood simply as the misunderstandings of a Byzantine writer observing these proceedings from a comfortable distance, and not as evidence that Muhammad and Islam were different then from what they are now.
At the same time, there is not a single account of any kind dating from around the time the Doctrina Jacobi was written that affirms the canonical Islamic story of Muhammad and Islam’s origins. One other possibility is that the unnamed prophet of the Doctrina Jacobi was one of several such figures, some of whose historical attributes
were later subsumed into the figure of the prophet of Islam under the name of one of them, Muhammad. For indeed, there is nothing dating from the time of Muhammad’s activities or for a considerable period thereafter that actually tells us anything about what he was like or what he did.
I have already quoted a quote from 637 AD which is close to the time when Muhammad lived and also around the same time when Doctrina Jacobi was writing.
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

yeezevee
Posts: 6547
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:17 pm

Re: Did Muhammad Exist?, A book by by Robert Spencer

Post by yeezevee »

skynightblaze wrote:I
...................................

It is claimed from the quote of Doctrina JAcobi that Muhammad was alive by 635 Ad however Theophanes who was born around 760 AD wrote that Muhammad died around 629 AD to 630 AD. So again my question is who is correct here? Theophanes or Doctrina Jacobi? Please read the quote from Theophanes in the spoiler below..

...............
if Theophanes was born around 760 AD then by the time that guys started writing something such historical importance of that time., he must be at least 20 year old guy., That means Theophanes must have written his documents on Muhammad around or after the year 780., Again that means ~150 years after the death of Muhammad., So whatever he has written on Muhammad he must have got it from some other source..

So the question to you SKB is., why do you trust Theophanes history on Islam??

User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Did Muhammad Exist?, A book by by Robert Spencer

Post by skynightblaze »

yeezevee wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:I
...................................

It is claimed from the quote of Doctrina JAcobi that Muhammad was alive by 635 Ad however Theophanes who was born around 760 AD wrote that Muhammad died around 629 AD to 630 AD. So again my question is who is correct here? Theophanes or Doctrina Jacobi? Please read the quote from Theophanes in the spoiler below..

...............
if Theophanes was born around 760 AD then by the time that guys started writing something such historical importance of that time., he must be at least 20 year old guy., That means Theophanes must have written his documents on Muhammad around or after the year 780., Again that means ~150 years after the death of Muhammad., So whatever he has written on Muhammad he must have got it from some other source..

So the question to you SKB is., why do you trust Theophanes history on Islam??
Your question is valid however let us see where Theophanes got his information from.
Answering islam wrote: The Chronicle of Theophanes the Confessor is a strictly annalistic work covering the years 285–813. The Chronicle is a continuation of that of George Synkellos who wrote a universal chronicle from the creation of the world to 284 but he died before he could complete it. Theophanes had access to the notes that George had gathered, including a Greek translation of the lost chronicle of Theophilus of Edessa. As a result, Theophanes is well informed about events in the east. The chronicle was seen as such an important historical source that the Papal librarian, Anastasius Bibliothecarius in 875, translated it into Latin. The rubric of the chronicle has dates from the beginning of creation, the five patriarchs that were in power in the various Sees, the Byzantine emperor and the king of the Persians (later the Islamic caliph).
http://www.answering-islam.org/history/ ... onses.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Theophanes got his information from George Synkellos who was another non muslim.

Now my question to you is why would George Synkellos deliberately include the name of Muhammad ? AS a non muslim what can be the purpose of doing that? More ever if Muhammad really did not exist then why did a single non muslim author raise such a question? I mean surely the news would spread and atleast someone would be bold enough to claim that such a character never existed. Instead we see non muslims referring to muhammad but giving a mixture of incorrect and correct details.That is enough evidence in my opinion that Muhammad did exist however details about him were not much known to these non muslim writers. This could be because islam was not so powerful or so widespread enough to know details about it.

Secondly John Bar Penkaye was writing in 687 AD. He too makes a mention of Muhammad however Spencer does not comment in detail about it and he writes..
Spencer wrote: Writing ten years later, in 690, the Nestorian Christian chronicler John bar Penkaye writes of the authority of Muhammad and of the Arabians’ brutality in enforcing that authority, but he still knows of no new holy book among the conquerors. He also paints a picture of a new religious practice that is far closer to Judaism and Christianity than Islam eventually became:
It is true he does not use the word islam/quran but that would mean quran was not in existence but how does that translate to Muhammad did not exist? John BAr penkaye is talking about killing people who do not follow his tradition i.e. killing those who disbelieve which is line with teachings of islam. Mind you this is all written before even Ibn Ishaq or any biography of Muhammad was written..

Now what I feel is that islam was not as popular enough to know in details in those days as we see today but this is a personal belief which may or may not be wrong. Not even Arabia was under the control of islam when Muhammad died . I think the thugs following Muhammad accomplished a lot more than Muhammad could ever imagine. The lack of popularity of islam could be the reason as to why terms like muslim and islam are missing. The non muslim writers often refer to them as Saracens.

Lastly I also quoted a piece from 637 AD. IDesigner has raised some interesting points and I need to comment on it but again I think it can be proven that the quote from 637 AD refers to muhammad.
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Did Muhammad Exist?, A book by by Robert Spencer

Post by skynightblaze »

Idesigner wrote: Only way we can trust that manuscript you mentioned if we can do carbon dating on it and proves to be +- 30 years from from death of Abu Bakr.
I fully agree with you and Spencer on whatever you wrote before this line. Now coming to the point where I disagree..
Noldeke has managed to prove that this text dates back to somewhere in the 7th century.Please read the following link..

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=N3Vp ... &q&f=false" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Please also read this for details on the quote that I have presented..

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=VdXM ... &q&f=false" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Basically we are advised caution before drawing any conclusion from the writings deciphered because the text is fragmented and not everything is clear however those words which are clear have been directly translated from Syriac to English while whatever is not clear is put in brackets (curly,round,square). I am not trying to make any sense out of the message however it does include the word "Muhammad" and that in my opinion cannot be denied irrespective of the message that the quote is trying to convey. Let me know your opinion on this..
Idesigner wrote: Spencer is applyng same criteria many detractors of Christianity apply. No one can prove that historic christ existed as it is mentioned in Gospel. All accounts of Gospel about Christ are full of contradictions. Full fledged Christianity may have been product of fertile imagination of St. Paul who himself might have been a mythological character, a hard core Jew civil servant employed by Romans.
I am clueless about this.. :D
Idesigner wrote: Its very likely that Mohemmed we know from Ibn Ishaq etc. was a composite character. All prophets, messangers, seers, philosopher of past survived as a composite character or outright myths. All religions were later mythologized by faithfuls, Islam is no exception. No matter how many non muslims they kill to prove the antiquity or authenticity of their faith.
The question is why would non muslim writers include his name in the first place? Atleast one of them would be bold to call it a myth but instead they chose to make a mention of him and they get some details on islam correct and some totally wrong. Therefore the conclusion could be that Muhammad did exist and was not so popular that people knew every single thing he preached. It could be just like that people knew some a!rse hole was claiming to be a prophet and he is among the Saracens (which seems to be the commonly used word to refer to arabs). Islam I think became a major religion only after the thugs of Muhammad followed his footsteps and expanded the islamic empire.
Idesigner wrote: On other hand I suspect Spencer is becoming Koran only muslim. Guy looks muslim with his beard. Looks like Koran only guys like Mesmorial can learn lot from Spncer. If there was no historic Mohemmed why to blame him for pedophilia, rapes, looting and killing others. :cool:
No Spencer is not a quran alone muslim and he is trying to dismiss the quran too and not just ahadith and sira. That is why I said that I would still be happy if he is right :lol:
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

User avatar
marduk
Posts: 1524
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 2:39 pm

Re: Did Muhammad Exist?, A book by by Robert Spencer

Post by marduk »

Rather interesting that both quotes from non-Muslims from around the time of Muhammad flatly state that he is a false prophet. How is it that normal people could very easily tell that he was a fraud but the Arabs couldn't? The part about prophets not carrying swords would have been their first clue. How many warlord prophets have there been. I guess you could say that Moses led the Jews to Canaan to invade it, but he certainly wasn't a warrior himself. Maybe Joshua, I haven't really looked into his story yet. One thing is for sure, if God was going to choose one final prophet it sure wouldn't have been Muhammad. If he chose him then everyone would say "God is a war monger". That wouldn't be good for his image as "beneficent, merciful".

User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Did Muhammad Exist?, A book by by Robert Spencer

Post by skynightblaze »

@Yeezevee

Now read the writings of John of Damascus who was writing in 730 AD. Please make a note that by 730 AD no islamic scripture like Sira or ahadith existed so John is definitely not getting his clues about Muhammad from muslim sources. He accurately describes Muhammad just as it is described in the islamic sources. Robert Spencer has made comments on John of Damascus however i do not think they anyway reduce credibility of Muhammad's existence. John of Damascus describes existence of Muhammad since the time of Heraclius who lived till 641 AD. So Muhammad naturally must be existing before 641 Ad. Spencer however brushes away John of Damascus by saying that he was commenting 100 years later. So what if it is 100 years later? How does that mean it is a lie? How difficult is it for us today to comment on some personality that is quite well known 100 years back ??. John of Damascus would certainly know that the character of Muhammad was fake and would have definitely mentioned it because he seemed to hate islam. Anyway, Spencer has discussed the quote from John of Damascus in length to show what he confirmed with islamic texts and what he did not. Also note below in the spoiler, John of Damascus even quotes the name of poor Zaid- the adopted son whose wife was stolen by Muhammad..
Spoiler! :
John of Damascus wrote: There is also the superstition of the Ishmaelites which to this day prevails and keeps people in error…..These used to be idolaters and worshiped the morning star and Aphrodite…..and so down to the time of Heraclius they were very great idolaters. From that time to the present a false prophet named Muhammad has appeared in their midst. This man, after having chanced upon the Old and New Testaments and likewise, it seems having conversed with an Arian monk, devised his own heresy. Then, having insinuated himself into the good graces of the people by a show of seeming piety, he gave out that a certain book had been sent down to him from heaven. He had set down some ridiculous compositions in this book of his and he gave it to them as an object of veneration.

He says that there is one God, creator of all things, who has neither been begotten nor has begotten. He says that the Christ is the word of God and His Spirit, but a creature and a servant, and that he was begotten, without seed, of Mary the sister of Moses and Aaron. For, he says, the word and God and the spirit entered into Mary and she brought forth Jesus, who was a prophet and servant of God. And he says that the Jews wanted to crucify him in violation of the law, and that they seized his shadow and crucified this. But the Christ himself was not crucified, he says, nor did he die, for God out of his love for him took him to himself into heaven.

Then, when we say: “How is it that this prophet of yours did not come in the same way, with others bearing witness to him? And how is it that God did not in your presence present this man with the book to which you refer, even as he (God) gave the Law to Moses, with the people looking on and the mountain smoking, so that you, too, might have certainty?” – they answer that God does as he pleases. “This,” we say, “We know, but we are asking how the book came down to the prophet.”

Then they reply that the book came down to him while he was asleep. Then we jokingly say to them that, as long as he received the book in his sleep and did not actually sense the operation, then the popular adage applies to him (which runs: You’re spinning me dreams).

When we ask again: “How is it that when he enjoined us in this book of yours not to do anything or receive anything without witnesses, you did not ask him: ‘First do you show us by witnesses that you are a prophet and that you have come from God, and show us just what Scriptures there are that testify about you’” – they are ashamed and remain silent.

“Although you may not marry a wife without witnesses, or buy, or acquire property; although you neither receive an ass nor possess a beast of burden unwitnessed; and although you do possess both wives and property and asses and so on through witnesses, yet it is only your faith and your scriptures that you hold unsubstantiated by witnesses. For he who handed this down to you has no warranty from any source, nor is there anyone known who testified about him before he came. On the contrary, he received it while he was asleep.”

They furthermore accuse us of being idolaters, because we venerate the cross, which they abominate. And we answer them: “How is it, then, that you rub yourselves against a stone (the black stone) in your Kaaba and kiss and embrace it? Then some of them say that Abraham had relations with Hagar upon it, but others say that he tied the camel to it, when he was going to sacrifice Isaac. And we answer them: “Since scripture says that the mountain was wooded and had trees from which Abraham cut wood for the holocaust and laid it upon Isaac, and then he left the asses behind with the two young men, why talk nonsense? For in that place neither is it thick with trees nor is there passage for asses.” And they are embarrassed, but they still assert that the stone is Abraham’s. Then we say: “Let it be Abraham’s, as you foolishly say. Then, just because Abraham had relations with a woman on it or tied a camel to it, you are not ashamed to kiss it, yet you blame us for venerating the cross of Christ by which the power of the demons and the deceit of the Devil was destroyed.”

As has been related, this Muhammad wrote many ridiculous books, to each one of which he set a title. For example, there is the book On Women, in which he plainly makes legal provision for taking four wives and, if possible, a thousand concubines – as many as one can maintain, besides the four wives. He also made it legal to put away whichever wife one might wish, and, should one wish so, take to oneself another in the same way. Muhammad had a friend named Zeid. This man had a beautiful wife with whom Muhammad fell in love. Once, when they were sitting together, Muhammad said: “Oh, by the way, God has commanded me to take your wife.”[/color]

The other answered: “You are an apostle. Do as God has told you and take my wife”. (John of Damascus. On Heresies 101)
Last edited by skynightblaze on Wed May 02, 2012 8:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Did Muhammad Exist?, A book by by Robert Spencer

Post by skynightblaze »

marduk wrote:Rather interesting that both quotes from non-Muslims from around the time of Muhammad flatly state that he is a false prophet. How is it that normal people could very easily tell that he was a fraud but the Arabs couldn't? The part about prophets not carrying swords would have been their first clue. How many warlord prophets have there been. I guess you could say that Moses led the Jews to Canaan to invade it, but he certainly wasn't a warrior himself. Maybe Joshua, I haven't really looked into his story yet. One thing is for sure, if God was going to choose one final prophet it sure wouldn't have been Muhammad. If he chose him then everyone would say "God is a war monger". That wouldn't be good for his image as "beneficent, merciful".
I have quoted John of Damascus too. Please read the post above for details.. Anyway we are not debating here whether Muhammad was a true prophet or not. He was obviously a false prophet and a worst man to have ever lived on the face of earth. He was simply an all rounder as far as crime is concerned. Anyway regarding your last post, Abu Bakhr succeeded Muhammad. This is recorded by Theophanes.
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Did Muhammad Exist?, A book by by Robert Spencer

Post by skynightblaze »

Just a correction. I said ahadith or Sirah did not exist even in 730 AD. As far as I know that is not the case. There existed a few ahadith but they are not well known today. Bukhari had access to them.
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

User avatar
marduk
Posts: 1524
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 2:39 pm

Re: Did Muhammad Exist?, A book by by Robert Spencer

Post by marduk »

Thanks for mentioning John of Damascus. I hadn't even heard about that before. So even that soon after Islam started people could already see right through Muhammad's little scheme. They weren't fooled at all. Only the Arabs actually fell for it hook line and sinker. Poor inbred buggers. Just try not to laugh too hard when one of them tells you that Muhammad was the greatest prophet who ever lived. If only Arabs were able to read in 730 AD. They could have saved themselves a lot of embarrassment. It was bad enough that they believed it then, what excuse do they have now? Literally hundreds of people have shown the huge amount of evidence that Islam is false and Arabs and Indonesians STILL think it's a real religion and, get this, they actually pray 5 times a day to Muhammad's "Allah" just because he said so. No explanation was ever given for why it was suddenly 5 instead of 1, but that didn't bother Arabs and Indos. If Muhammad said so, that was reason enough to waste a huge amount of time every day.

Muslims had no answer when John asked them the following questions, and they still have no answers today. The only thing they can do is take verses from the Bible and try to pass them off as predictions of Muhammad. Nobody is dumb enough to buy that story but they just keep repeating it anyway. Simple fact is, John of Damascus is considered a real saint and is known to have written many books and was quite a scholar. Contrast that with Muhammad, an illiterate nobody, and you can guess who is the one to be believed. As John wrote, Islam is just another heresy, a particularly brazen one making such outlandish claims that only a complete idiot would actually believe any of them. The most amazing thing about Islam is that anybody ever actually believed it, especially after a saint patiently explained to them how ludicrous it is. Oh right, Muslims can't read, forgot. Speaking of saints, why are there no Muslim saints? Only Christians are able to do miracles apparently. How can that be when Jesus was just an average prophet and Muhammad was the Messiah?
He says that there is one God, creator of all things, who has neither been begotten nor has begotten. [102] He says that the Christ is the Word of God and His Spirit, but a creature and a servant, and that He was begotten, without seed, of Mary the sister of Moses and Aaron. [103] For, he says, the Word and God and the Spirit entered into Mary and she brought forth Jesus, who was a prophet and servant of God. And he says that the Jews wanted to crucify Him in violation of the law, and that they seized His shadow and crucified this. But the Christ Himself was not crucified, he says, nor did He die, for God out of His love for Him took Him to Himself into heaven. [104] And he says this, that when the Christ had ascended into heaven God asked Him: ‘O Jesus, didst thou say: “I am the Son of God and God”?’ And Jesus, he says, answered: ‘Be merciful to me, Lord. Thou knowest that I did not say this and that I did not scorn to be thy servant. But sinful men have written that I made this statement, and they have lied about me and have fallen into error.’ And God answered and said to Him: ‘I know that thou didst not say this word.” [105] There are many other extraordinary and quite ridiculous things in this book which he boasts was sent down to him from God. But when we ask: ‘And who is there to testify that God gave him the book? And which of the prophets foretold that such a prophet would rise up?’—they are at a loss.

And we remark that Moses received the Law on Mount Sinai, with God appearing in the sight of all the people in cloud, and fire, and darkness, and storm. And we say that all the Prophets from Moses on down foretold the coming of Christ and how Christ God (and incarnate Son of God) was to come and to be crucified and die and rise again, and how He was to be the judge of the living and dead. Then, when we say: ‘How is it that this prophet of yours did not come in the same way, with others bearing witness to him? And how is it that God did not in your presence present this man with the book to which you refer, even as He gave the Law to Moses, with the people looking on and the mountain smoking, so that you, too, might have certainty?’—they answer that God does as He pleases.
http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/stjohn_islam.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Post Reply