Historicity of Muhammad _Did Muhammad Exist?,

His life, his examples and his psychology
Ghaith
Posts: 1385
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2012 10:59 am

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

Post by Ghaith »

pr126 wrote:My job before I retired was IT engineer.
Parents must have been proud?

Please do not put a video in your signature. If must, only use a link, or it will be deleted.

M.
User avatar
pr126
Posts: 5464
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 9:24 am
Location: Blighty

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

Post by pr126 »

Yos1994 wrote:
pr126 wrote:My job before I retired was IT engineer.
Parents must have been proud?
Parents have been dead for many decades.
Islam: an idea to kill and die for.
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 »

ygalg wrote:
skynightblaze wrote: Does twitter allow freedom of speech? I call Muhammad all sorts of names. Also how comfortable is it for debating? I mean does it have all the features of a forum like we have here? I have never been on twitter and that is why I do not know.
it has guidelines although I have yet experience restriction of sort. also terror organizations and neo nazis account are there which tells you its less restrict. but the twitter is good place to invite muslims to a debate here. a better way is to list Robert Spencer @jihadwatchRS watch sort of muslims hackle him.

twitter allows 140 paragraphs to be type you need to be familiar with short typing for instance instead writing "you voted for Romney" you write "u voted 4 Romney"

there are apps you can use such as http://www.twitlonger.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; that allows you to make more paragraphs in full. but does not works on replies. also https://bitly.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; that helps you to shorten links

VIP (@jihadwatchRS) accounts most won't follow you back, so don't follow them. list them instead. create categories where to list VIP or other stuff. there is restriction about how much you can follow. its better to follow these who follow you, which are the most regular accounts and be sure they've share interests. as there are these who use twitter to advertise themselves. if some poster suddenly not posting familiar, probably the account was hacked. so be careful not to press links.
Ok. I will join twitter. We cannot have a debate but we can persuade muslims to debate here.
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 »

Robert Spencer & David Wood vs. Anjem Choudary & Omar Bakri
Did Muhammad Exist?

User avatar
Fernando
Posts: 4949
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2012 1:27 pm

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

Post by Fernando »

What an epic fail! Two experienced Muslim apologists, who'd had the chance to read Spencer's arguments in advance in his book, totally lost. I can't say outclassed because there was nothing to outclass. Even the callers after the "debate" were better than those two. It's a pity though, that the old buffoon had such a bad line - if it had been clearer, he'd probably have destroyed their case even more comprehensively.
I'd be more interested to see the real debate about whether there was some kind of historical Mo, referred to a couple of times, between Spencer and Wood. Has anyone a link to that please?
‘Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs and literary traditions. They neither intermarry nor eat together, and indeed they belong to two different civilisations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions.’ Muhammad Ali Jinnah
User avatar
Fernando
Posts: 4949
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2012 1:27 pm

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

Post by Fernando »

Fernando wrote:I'd be more interested to see the real debate about whether there was some kind of historical Mo, referred to a couple of times, between Spencer and Wood. Has anyone a link to that please?
It's here: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/05/rober ... exist.html I'm looking forward to watching it later.
‘Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs and literary traditions. They neither intermarry nor eat together, and indeed they belong to two different civilisations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions.’ Muhammad Ali Jinnah
User avatar
Fernando
Posts: 4949
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2012 1:27 pm

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

Post by Fernando »

Well, that was much better! Even so, it tended to swing around one topic, the criterion of embarrassment. I'm a bit wary of Wood's use of this, because it was first invented to justify a historical Jesus: his ignominious death and far from splendid birth. Both, though, left big gaps which it would be most interesting to hear them fill.
Wood said that Mo existed, yet there was still a big gap in the record. Why? Right at the end. he suggested it was because the early [and not-so-early!] Muslims were only interested in rape and pillage and not in Mo. As Spencer pointed out, that leaves us wondering why they bothered later.
Spencer used the gap to say Mo didn't exist and the whole thing was fabricated later. I don't recall his saying in his book how this was done. I know the Arabs are said to have needed a unifying religion/book. Why so late in their conquests? Was it an elaboration of campfire tales? Did the then rulers set some scholars in a dungeon and refuse to let them out until they came up with a book? I'd love to hear some speculation!
Well done both of them - I hope they have a return match some time!
‘Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs and literary traditions. They neither intermarry nor eat together, and indeed they belong to two different civilisations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions.’ Muhammad Ali Jinnah
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 »

He must have existed because half the stuff in the Quran benefits nobody but him. How would letting Muhammad have more wives than everybody else have been made up by others? Besides, his tomb is right there in Medina. We could dig him up right now and crush up his bones so he can never be resurrected. He caused enough trouble the first time.
He was buried where he died, in Aisha's house.[15][187][188][189] During the reign of the Umayyad caliph al-Walid I, the Al-Masjid al-Nabawi (the Mosque of the Prophet) was expanded to include the site of Muhammad's tomb.[190] The Green Dome above the tomb was built by the Mamluk sultan Al Mansur Qalawun in the 13th century, although the green color was added in the 16th century, under the reign of Ottoman sultan Suleiman the Magnificent.[191] Among tombs adjacent to Muhammad's are those of his companions (Sahabah)—the first two Muslim Caliphs Abu Bakr and Umar—, and an empty one that Muslims believe awaits Jesus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad#Death_and_tomb" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Oh yeah, I'm sure Jesus wants to be buried next to Muhammad. I hope he has enough cash on him to pay Muhammad's bones jizyah.
User avatar
Fernando
Posts: 4949
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2012 1:27 pm

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

Post by Fernando »

marduk wrote: Besides, his tomb is right there in Medina. We could dig him up right now and crush up his bones so he can never be resurrected. He caused enough trouble the first time.
I thought the Saudi Wahabis had demolished and concreted over everything so that no tombs could ever be found again, They claim it's to avoid idolatry rather than crushing though. :)
‘Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs and literary traditions. They neither intermarry nor eat together, and indeed they belong to two different civilisations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions.’ Muhammad Ali Jinnah
yeezevee
Posts: 6547
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:17 pm

Re: Historicity of Muhammad _Did Muhammad Exist?,

Post by yeezevee »

Hmm I didn't know there is folder on this subject .. let us make it up to date...

Spencer book
Did the Prophet Muhammad Really Exist? _ Robert Spencer’s Answer

Well, no. If you mean the prophet of Islam who was purported to receive revelations from Allah that were put into the Koran. No, that guy certainly did not exist,” he boldly proclaimed. “The regular guy — he possibly existed.”
Dated Texts Mentioning Prophet Muḥammad From 1-100 AH / 622-719 CE by M S M Saifullah & ʿAbdullah David from islamic-awareness.org

The history of the quest for the "historical" Muhammad in the modern Western literature has its origins from the time (c. 1850 CE) of Sir William Muir[1] and Alois Sprenger.[2] Both of them suspected that much of the Islamic traditions on Muhammad, which were accepted by Muslims as authentic, were in fact forged. Their views were given a further impetus by Ignaz Goldziher who became convinced that the tradition literature had grown up after the Arab conquests, i.e., the aḥādīth did not reflect the life of Prophet Muhammad; rather they reflect the beliefs, conflicts and controversies of the first generation of Muslims.[3] In other words, the aḥādīth reflect reality, but not the reality of seventh century Arabia but of Umayyad and early Abbasid empires.

[1] Sir W. Muir, The Mohammedan Controversy, Biographies Of Mohammed, Sprenger On Tradition, Indian Liturgy And The Psalter, 1897, T. & T. Clark: Edinburgh.

[2] A. Sprenger, The Life Of Mohammad, From Original Sources, 1851, Presbyterian Mission Press: Allahabad; idem., Das Leben Und Die Lehre Des Mohammad Nach Bisher Grösstentheils Unbenutzten Quellen Bearbeitet, 1861-1865,

((Three Volumes, Nicolai'sche Verlagsbuchh.: Berlin. For a review summarizing the contents of these two books, especially on the skepticism of life of Muhammad as mentioned in the Islamic literature see Sir W. Muir, The Mohammedan Controversy, Biographies Of Mohammed, Sprenger On Tradition, Indian Liturgy And The Psalter, 1897, op. cit., pp. 106-118.))

[3] I. Goldziher (Ed. S. M. Stern), Muslim Studies (Muhammedanische Studien), 1971, Volume II, Atherton: New York and Aldine: Chicago, p. 11. ....

Following the earlier scepticism, albeit charting a new direction, John Wansbrough argued that ḥadīth literature is exegetical in origin, i.e., the bulk of the tradition literature is closely tied to the interpretation of the Qur'an, which he believed did not take its final form/canonised until the late eighth / early ninth century. Ḥadīth literature is not rooted in history but it originated due to the propensity of the early Muslims to tell the stories related to the Qur'an.[5] A variation of Wansbrough's position was put forth by John Burton who suggested that the origins of ḥadīth had nothing to do with real life and everything to do with the problem of interpreting the Qur'an.[6]

Following the footsteps of Wansbrough, a different approach was taken by Judith Koren and Yehuda Nevo to study Islamic history. They contend that any Muslim source must be checked against a non-Muslim source (preferably material, e.g., archaeology, epigraphy, numismatics), and if the two sources conflict, the non-Muslim source is to be preferred.[7] Concerning Muhammad, they claim:

[Brock] points out that there are no details of Muhammad's early career in any Byzantine or Syriac sources which predate the Muslim literature on the subject.[8]

While commenting on the Islamic sources, Nevo claims that "neither the Prophet himself nor any Muhammadan formulae appear in any inscription dated before the year 71 / 691" and that the earliest occurrence of the phrase Muhammad rasūl Allāh is on an Arab-Sassanian coin of Khālid bin ʿAbdullāh from the year 71 AH / 691 CE.[9] It will be seen later that Nevo and Koren were wrong on both accounts, not in keeping with their most surprising claim that it is the revisionists and not the "traditionalists" who pay close attention to the findings of archaeology, epigraphy and numismatics.[10] Perhaps the situation can be summed up no better than the recent analysis by Jeremy Johns, Professor of Islamic Archaeology at the Oriental Institute, University of Oxford. He said,

The polemical style permitted historians to dismiss this article as not worth an answer, while Nevo's unorthodox interpretation of material evidence embarrassed archaeologists into silence (Fig. 1). What, it was widely asked, could have persuaded Der Islam to waste space in this manner?[11]
[4] J. Schacht, The Origins Of Muhammadan Jurisprudence, 1950, Oxford At Clarendon Press, p. 165.

[5] J. Wansbrough, Qur'anic Studies: Sources & Methods Of Scriptural Interpretation, 1977,.....

[6] J. Burton, An Introduction To Hadith, 1994, Edinburgh University Press: Edinburgh, p. xxiii and p. xv.

[7] J. Koren & Y. Nevo, "Methodological Approaches To Islamic Studies", Der Islam, 1991, Band 68, pp. 92-93.

[9] Y. D. Nevo, "Towards A Prehistory Of Islam", Jerusalem Studies In Arabic And Islam, 1994, Volume 17, pp. 109-110; Also see Y. Nevo & J. Koren, Crossroads To Islam: The Origins Of The Arab Religion And The Arab State, 2003, Prometheus Books: New York, p. 247.

[10] J. Koren & Y. Nevo, "Methodological Approaches To Islamic Studies", Der Islam, 1991, op. cit., p. 87. ........

[11] J. Johns, "Archaeology And The History Of Early Islam: The First Seventy Years", Journal Of The Economic And Social History Of The Orient, 2003, Volume 46, No. 4, p. 412......
User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11602
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Historicity of Muhammad _Did Muhammad Exist?,

Post by manfred »

I think, to put it simply, it would summarise it like this:

1) Was there a PROPHET Mohammed? Obviously not.
2)Was there a man called Mohammed? Very likely.
3)Did he have a following who BELIEVED that he was a "prophet". Again very likely.

A great many details about this man are quite credibly sourced, which does not mean that there also has been a lot of myth-building about him after his death.

John of Damascus was born some 40 years after the recorded death of Mohammed. He is an early independent witness the to the existence of MUSLIMS, and their belief in Mohammed. At his time a great many people would have known personally people who have met Mohammed during their lifetime. He was writing about Islam BEFORE Bukhari. It means that the myth-building process could not have progressed vastly, and therefore he is a good historical source for the existence of a historical Mohammed. (the man, not the prophet)
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"
yeezevee
Posts: 6547
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:17 pm

Re: Historicity of Muhammad _Did Muhammad Exist?,

Post by yeezevee »

manfred wrote:I think, to put it simply, it would summarise it like this:

1) Was there a PROPHET Mohammed? Obviously not.
2)Was there a man called Mohammed? Very likely.
3)Did he have a following who BELIEVED that he was a "prophet". Again very likely.
well we can go on asking such questions on that unknown character of Islam and explore answers..

4) Is Quran Muhammad same as hadith Muhammad?

5) why Quran mentioned so little about Muhammad specially in those so-called Meccan Suarhs?

6) Why Quran doesn't mention all these Sahaba guys who happened to play a very important role in early Islam but mention STUPID ZAID/ZAINAB silly story? ?

7) Is Meccan Muhammad same as Madinan Muhammad? or or they different characters?

8) Yes there must be a man called "Muhammad" and It means a Praise worthy man.., but "Muhammad" could have been used as an adjective which could be given to any leader and praise worthy man? is it possible that early Quran is all about Moses and Jesus and they may have been called as Praise worthy men hence they were "Muhammads of their time?

9) And as far as followers of Muhammad is concerned., How many followers were there in the first 10 years of Muhammad's preachings?

etc..etc...
A great many details about this man are quite credibly sourced, which does not mean that there also has been a lot of myth-building about him after his death.
and most those sources almost all of them are from hadith., very little from EXTERNAL SOURCES.. what other credibly sourced material could we present here that are NOT related to haidth manfred"?
John of Damascus was born some 40 years after the recorded death of Mohammed. He is an early independent witness the to the existence of MUSLIMS, and their belief in Mohammed. At his time a great many people would have known personally people who have met Mohammed during their lifetime. He was writing about Islam BEFORE Bukhari. It means that the myth-building process could not have progressed vastly, and therefore he is a good historical source for the existence of a historical Mohammed. (the man, not the prophet)
I have read about John of Damascus and I discussed here and thereincluding in the old FFi forums. Could you please add some references of him and his statements about Muhammad? and I would greatly appreciate if any readers or you could get this little book of Daniel J Sahas on Johannes Damascenus, Ohoffff stupid link says 172 dollars for that book

well so many questions very few answers if we remove hadith...

with best
yeezevee
User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11602
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Historicity of Muhammad _Did Muhammad Exist?,

Post by manfred »

The Qur'an itself is in a sense schizophrenic, and quite different in the Mecca texts and Medina texts.
So you may well ask if in fact we are talking about two different people, a "Mecca" and a "Medina" Mohammed. But I would not go as far as suggesting that these "two" are in fact physically different people.

Put yourself into the shoes of this man. He had a relatively securely life in Mecca with a wealthy wife and powerful friends. All that fell apart. After the death of his wife his money, began to dry up, soon people got more and more irritable with his "prophet" claims, and more and more of his protectors fell by the way side.

Sure his "persecution" in Mecca was probably somewhat exaggerated in later texts, but it was enough for him to decide to pack his bags and move, alongside with all but a handful of his supporters.

What would have gone through his head on his journey to Medina? Surely he would have felt angry, most likely appallingly unjustly treated. All these years he tried the calm and patient way, and for what?

This anger would be taking over his life. When faced with financial problems in Medina, he did not try to establish a trade, make himself useful, no instead he raided MECCAN caravans. It made his feel good, a sort of revenge, and it was surprisingly successful.

Before long the "prophet-warlord" was born. Whatever vestiges of religion he had in Mecca, they were gone in Medina. Now his "prophethood" became a means to recruit and control an ever increasing number of armed men.

His "revelations" became increasingly situational, and increasingly controlled by that anger he brought from Mecca.

So, the "Medina" Mohammed is a damaged person, much more so than the Mecca Mohammed. His life had changed completely, and with it the way he sees others and himself.

Therefore I do not believe in two separate physical Mohammeds. Just one, but with a changing personality.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"
User avatar
Hombre
Posts: 3740
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 3:18 am

Re: Historicity of Muhammad _Did Muhammad Exist?,

Post by Hombre »

No I think we are dealing with same man. Because, if we review the path and formation of cults, Mohammad fits the same pattern.
a) they start their interaction with their surroundings through gentile and most cautious manner (oh, my goodness, he is such a nice guy, and the one all go to for advise) "he, i mean prospective cult leader.
b) as Lenin once said. "useful idiots", and those herds who seek a Sheppard to lead them. Soon or later, some people will follow this guy.
c) the case of corruption through power. once they feel secure in their position as ". they move in and through force tighten their grip on their followers.

The Mecca version explains Mohammad's lack of power, and means to enforce his will on others. so had had to play the nice guy - which he did.
The Medinah version explains when he did reach the latter phase, where he could dictate his will on others.

We saw that with Hitler Jim Jones in Guayna, and Mao Tse-Tung inChina, and now in N. Korea, when the grandfather of this guy started the cultis dynasty there..
yeezevee
Posts: 6547
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:17 pm

Re: Historicity of Muhammad _Did Muhammad Exist?,

Post by yeezevee »

Hombre wrote:No I think we are dealing with same man. Because, if we review the path and formation of cults, Mohammad fits the same pattern...........

............We saw that with Hitler Jim Jones in Guayna, and Mao Tse-Tung inChina, and now in N. Korea, when the grandfather of this guy started the cultis dynasty there..
hello Mr. Hombre'.. greetings and my good wishes to you., I have not read many posts from you and that is because I was not very active in ffi although I am in this forum from the beginning.,... Damn that was 12 years ago....

Well yes I do agree with some parts of Hombre's post but I can easily raise questions in the sense

"What is the source of his assumptions " that Muhammad started a cult?? most probably it is common sense ....

"If it is a cult why didn't it die with in 50 or 100 year after his death unlike the cults of unlike the cults of Hitler Jim Jones, and Mao Tse-Tung , N. Korea grandfather etc..etc...?"

"And who is responsible for this unprecedented growth of this cult for the past 1400 years until the starting of 21st century? Muslims? Christians? Jews? Pagans? Hindus? Buddhists"?

"And who will be responsible for the growth of this cult in 21st century?"

with best wishes
yeezevee
Last edited by yeezevee on Sun Jun 15, 2014 2:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11602
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Historicity of Muhammad _Did Muhammad Exist?,

Post by manfred »

Well , Islam ALMOST died out soon after the death of Mohammed, and it took drastic action of his "successors" to ensure its survival. "Death to the apostate" is one reason. Another one is the continuing and accelerating military expansion. Sticks and carrots. If you leave we will kill you, but you stick around and play along you may get rich.

To me there is no mystery why it did not die out at all. Not all cults die with their leaders, particularly not those who have ruthless successors.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"
yeezevee
Posts: 6547
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:17 pm

Re: Historicity of Muhammad _Did Muhammad Exist?,

Post by yeezevee »

manfred wrote:Well , Islam ALMOST died out soon after the death of Mohammed, and it took drastic action of his "successors" to ensure its survival. "Death to the apostate" is one reason. Another one is the continuing and accelerating military expansion. Sticks and carrots. If you leave we will kill you, but you stick around and play along you may get rich.
By that you are saying "Islam of Muhammad is different from Islam of his "successors" /followers". And Who are these guys the successors? are they just Arabian pagans? are they just Arabian Bedouin Baboons ? Or are they , Jews, Christians, pagans and other tribes of Arabia and from other countries/cultures who moved in to Islam?
To me there is no mystery why it did not die out at all. Not all cults die with their leaders, particularly not those who have ruthless successors.
manfred give me an example of a cult that lived 1400 years after the death of its leader...
yeezevee
Posts: 6547
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:17 pm

Re: Historicity of Muhammad _Did Muhammad Exist?,

Post by yeezevee »

Well let me answer manfred's post and question & clarify it..
manfred wrote:The Qur'an itself is in a sense schizophrenic, and quite different in the Mecca texts and Medina texts.
Yes indeed the preset book and texts in it is schizophrenic and confusing but i would NOT blame that on Muhammad. I would blame that on those who that book together and we know well it is put together way after his alleged death. I went through Quran many times and i know well alleged Meccan texts are way different from Madinan texts., In fact in the old ffi forum I have analyzed that in number of posts. the other important thins many of Muslims as well as Non-Muslims DO NOT READ QURAN CAREFULLY..
So you may well ask if in fact we are talking about two different people, a "Mecca" and a "Medina" Mohammed. But I would not go as far as suggesting that these "two" are in fact physically different people.
well that is possible and it is also possible that Meccan Muhammad an Madinan Muhammad are NOT two different people . Also it is possible that Meccan Quran writers are different from Madinan Quran writers along with the 3rd category those who put the book together what we see now are different from the first two groups..
Put yourself into the shoes of this man.
i will not do that :lol: I want my head to stay on my neck...
He had a relatively securely life in Mecca with a wealthy wife and powerful friends. All that fell apart. After the death of his wife his money, began to dry up, soon people got more and more irritable with his "prophet" claims, and more and more of his protectors fell by the way side.
Links please., That is not true and there is NO proof of that. His first wife Khadija was alive all the way until alleged Islam is 10 year old. You are obviously taking that from Sirah and hadith but according that he had more protectors with in a year after her death
Sure his "persecution" in Mecca was probably somewhat exaggerated in later texts, but it was enough for him to decide to pack his bags and move, alongside with all but a handful of his supporters.
I don't think there was any persecution" in Mecca .. All these guys were singing songs that is all what they did with the exception this alleged preacher Muhammad was questioning that Son of God hypothesis and Trinity hypothesis of Christians of Arabia So he wanted them to consider Jesus as Prophet or messenger Not son of god
What would have gone through his head on his journey to Medina? Surely he would have felt angry, most likely appallingly unjustly treated. All these years he tried the calm and patient way, and for what?
that is also not true.. where did you get that information? from Jews and Christians of that time?? If he was same Muhammad he was well of in Madina also. And rest of your post in the spoiler below needs a detailed analysis of alleged Muhammad's alleged life manfred...
Spoiler! :
This anger would be taking over his life. When faced with financial problems in Medina, he did not try to establish a trade, make himself useful, no instead he raided MECCAN caravans. It made his feel good, a sort of revenge, and it was surprisingly successful.

Before long the "prophet-warlord" was born. Whatever vestiges of religion he had in Mecca, they were gone in Medina. Now his "prophethood" became a means to recruit and control an ever increasing number of armed men.

His "revelations" became increasingly situational, and increasingly controlled by that anger he brought from Mecca.

So, the "Medina" Mohammed is a damaged person, much more so than the Mecca Mohammed. His life had changed completely, and with it the way he sees others and himself.

Therefore I do not believe in two separate physical Mohammeds. Just one, but with a changing personality
.
So I will do it in the next post
User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Historicity of Muhammad _Did Muhammad Exist?,

Post by skynightblaze »

Yeezevee wrote:If it is a cult why didn't it die with in 50 or 100 year after his death unlike the cults of unlike the cults of Hitler Jim Jones, and Mao Tse-Tung , N. Korea grandfather etc..etc...?"
There is a difference. Islam claimed to be from God while other cults did not. I guess this makes a huge difference.
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: Historicity of Muhammad _Did Muhammad Exist?,

Post by yeezevee »

skynightblaze wrote:
Yeezevee wrote:If it is a cult why didn't it die with in 50 or 100 year after his death unlike the cults of unlike the cults of Hitler :yuk: Jim Jones, and Mao Tse-Tung , N. Korea grandfather etc..etc...?"
There is a difference. Islam claimed to be from God while other cults did not. I guess this makes a huge difference.
I will question that, in the above list Hombre didn't pick up right names except Jim Jones. Other guys are political in nature,, let me give names of recent and old cults..

Shoko Asahara , Jim Jones , Charles Manson, Joseph Di Mambro, Marshall Applewhite, David Koresh .. those are deadly cults and plenty more so-called new age religious movements have come out None of the old ones and none of the news one can beat Islam.. if you consider Islam as cult...
Post Reply