Did Muhammad actually exist?

[CheskiChips]

Given that lying can be good if the intended outcome is good, how can you be sure your scholars are truthful ?

Haha she doesn't answer the question...why?

Becayse myles laid down the smack down.

 

[(Q)]

So you would not lie to save someone's life; like the Dutch bat, you'd hand over people to be slaughtered. Truth prevails, heigh ho. Fine, thats your idea of being righteous. Its not mine.

You're refusing to answer the question in no way affords you permission to change the subject.

 

[S.A.M.]

The scholars did not express their opinions. The Hadith is a collection of what other people said. No Muslim believes they are all authentic. Credibility to Hadiths is not assigned by truth, but by authentic knowledge of chain of narration [ie we know for sure who said it, whether they told the truth is a matter of faith].

Of course, most people are clueless about what Muslims think, so its not surprising that their questions will reflect their ignorance. There may be several false Hadiths with an authentic chain of narration and several true Hadiths for which the true chain of narration could not be found. There is no real objective way to know it. Rule of thumb: if it contradicts the Qur'an or common sense, ignore it.

 

[(Q)]

The scholars did not express their opinions. The Hadith is a collection of what other people said. No Muslim believes they are all authentic. Credibility to Hadiths is not assigned by truth, but by authentic knowledge of chain of narration [ie we know for sure who said it, whether they told the truth is a matter of faith].

Of course, most people are clueless about what Muslims think, so its not surprising that their questions will reflect their ignorance. There may be several false Hadiths with an authentic chain of narration and several true Hadiths for which the true chain of narration could not be found. There is no real objective way to know it.

But, it will remain a wide open invitation for any Muslim to lie when they feel the urge, regardless of your contrived, yet meaningless explanations.

Rule of thumb: if it contradicts the Qur'an or common sense, ignore it.

Common sense contradicts the Quran. So do many other subjects and concepts, like logic, reason, rationale, evidence, peace, understanding, knowledge, learning, respect, compassion, human, etc.

Quite simply put, if it contradicts the Quran, ignore it.

 

[Michael]

Michael:

I did give you references. Unless you are claiming that only white men in western society are to be considered valid references. In that case, perhaps you'd be better off asking a white man in a western society rather than a "coloured woman" from a Third world country.

I read the link, it doesn't have any information regarding who discovered the letters, when they were discovered, where, what dating methods were done. That link starts out venerating Allah and Mohammad. Obviously biased.

I'm surprised that you are not curious yourself. Don't you want to know this sort of information?

 

[S.A.M.]

No, at the most they could carbon date the letters to the right century. So what? :yawn:

Muhammed's legacy is not his letters. Its us, Muslims.

 

[Michael]

What the hell are you talking about. This is very simple SAM. I am asking whether or not the letters have been examined, who discovered the letters, etc...

as for legacy, that's asinine. Athena's legacy was not her letter. It's us Athenians. Xenu's legacy was not his letters. It's us Scientologists. etc.. etc.. etc...


In summary, because SAM is not willing to provide a peer reviewed reference that doens't not start out venerating Allah I'm inclinfed to think the letters are fraudulent.

So, we only have one contemporary letter, written by Greeks, describing a desert war lord. This may be Mohammad, if so it's quite fitting.

 

[S.A.M.]

Frankly, I read about it, but since I can't be arsed, I'm not going to bother. If its so important to you, you might want to look into it. Unless he sneezed on every letter and left a nose hair, which can be DNA identified by exhuming his bones or something, its completely irrelevant to me. And even then, it would be merely prurient interest.

Islam is an ideology, now whether its founder wrote with his left hand, had a big dick, preferred being on top, did handstands in his sleep, etc are all not relevant to what it is. Its like asking all these questions about Einstein. Who cares?

 

[Ghost_007]

I would say that the Prophet Muhammad was the most influential person in history. Muhammad's life story, his struggle and the succeeding spread of Islam has been nothing short of astonishing. 1400+ years is not really that long, however looking at the World and how Islam has been embraced by so many people of different cultures, races, backgrounds, languages from all over the World is simply remarkable, almost miraculous - and lets not ignore the consistency in the teachings.

Something funny, the name Muhammad is the second most popular name in the UK: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6727101.stm

I also heard a while back that the Prophet Muhammad is the most quoted person in history.

 

[S.A.M.]

I would say that the Prophet Muhammad was the most influential person in history. Muhammad's life story, his struggle and the succeeding spread of Islam has been nothing short of astonishing. 1400+ years is not really that long, however looking at the World and how Islam has been embraced by so many people of different cultures, races, backgrounds, languages from all over the World is simply remarkable, almost miraculous - and lets not ignore the consistency in the teachings.

Something funny, the name Muhammad is the second most popular name in the UK: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6727101.stm

I also heard a while back that the Prophet Muhammad is the most quoted person in history.

Nice, I haven't read that.

I have read, though, that western scholars have abandoned the old religious polemic against him.

It was not until the latter part of the 20th century that Western authors combined rigorous scholarship as understood in the modern West with empathy toward the subject at hand and, especially, awareness of the religious and spiritual realities involved in the study of the life of the founder of a major world religion.[19] According to Watt and Richard Bell, recent writers have generally dismissed the idea that Muhammad deliberately deceived his followers, arguing that Muhammad “was absolutely sincere and acted in complete good faith”.[176] Watt says that sincerity does not directly imply correctness: In contemporary terms, Muhammad might have mistaken for divine revelation his own unconscious.[177] Although Muhammad's image in the west is much less unfavorable than in the past, prejudicial folk beliefs remain.[178]

Watt and Lewis argue that viewing Muhammad as a self-seeking imposter makes it impossible to understand the development of Islam.[179][180] Welch holds that Muhammad was able to be so influential and successful because of his firm belief in his vocation.[14] Muhammad’s readiness to endure hardship for his cause when there seemed to be no rational basis for hope shows his sincerity.[181]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad#European_and_Western_views

 

[Michael]

Frankly, I read about it, but since I can't be arsed, I'm not going to bother. If its so important to you, you might want to look into it. Unless he sneezed on every letter and left a nose hair, which can be DNA identified by exhuming his bones or something, its completely irrelevant to me. And even then, it would be merely prurient interest.

Islam is an ideology, now whether its founder wrote with his left hand, had a big dick, preferred being on top, did handstands in his sleep, etc are all not relevant to what it is. Its like asking all these questions about Einstein. Who cares?

Then why the run around?

Islam may be an ideology but so is Scientology - which is besides the point, the OP was about the historical evidence for the existence of Mohammad.

MII

 

[Michael]

At least we agree on the limited historicity of Mohammad.

In regards to the philosophy, that's why I have asked again and again, what's novel? I wonder, does Islamic philosophy work without God? If you take the superstition out what is left?

 

[S.A.M.]

At least we agree on the limited historicity of Mohammad.

In regards to the philosophy, that's why I have asked again and again, what's novel? I wonder, does Islamic philosophy work without God? If you take the superstition out what is left?

The emphasis on rational thinking, empiricism and pragmatism, to begin with. The idea that its for all people everywhere, a world religion, no chosen people, no bhikshus, The idea that all people are equal. No religious hierarchy, a meritocracy that rejects any kind of nepotism.

 

[(Q)]

The emphasis on rational thinking, empiricism and pragmatism, to begin with.

Using those would have the core beliefs of Islam broken down to superstition and myth, hence those concepts are self-defeating to Islam.

The idea that its for all people everywhere, a world religion, no chosen people, no bhikshus, The idea that all people are equal. No religious hierarchy, a meritocracy that rejects any kind of nepotism.

Religious socialism?

Yes Sam, Islam may have been something to follow since myth and superstition are what everyone followed these past many centuries. But, now it's time to shelve Islam along with the other medieval fairy tales as we move into the twenty-first century.

 

[S.A.M.]

Yeah, where some people are more equal than others, apparently.

 

[Myles]

The Hadith?

You mean statements like this?

"In 1848, Gustav Weil, noted that Muhammad al-Bukhari deemed only 4,000 of his original 600,000 hadiths to be authentic and argued that a European critic was required to reject without hesitation at least half of these 4,000. He was soon followed by Aloys Sprenger, who also suggests that many of the hadiths cannot be considered authentic [12]."

Gee, how do you think?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_hadith

It must be a great relief to have full confidence in scholars even though they sometimes disagrre among themselves. Saves a lot of thinking time.

 

[(Q)]

Yeah, where some people are more equal than others, apparently.

Is that supposed to be a response, or a troll? :shrug:

 

[S.A.M.]

It must be a great relief to have full confidence in scholars even though they sometimes disagrre among themselves. Saves a lot of thinking time.

Yeah, its called peer review.

 

[Myles]

Yeah, its called peer review.

And what exactly is being reviewed ?

 

[Michael]

The emphasis on rational thinking, empiricism and pragmatism, to begin with. The idea that its for all people everywhere, a world religion, no chosen people, no bhikshus, The idea that all people are equal. No religious hierarchy, a meritocracy that rejects any kind of nepotism.

Either Islam is a total failure or I think you've taken such an apologetic view that it could hardly be considered Islam.

What of atheists? Why was Slavery permitted, women are not legally equal to men thus not all people are equal, Citizen are delineated into those of the book and not of the book, people taxed differently based on beleif, thus people are hired and taxed based on beleif not on merit, Caliphs hierarchical.

Perhaps we see things differently, I think a world with multiple religions is better than a world with only one, or in some cases none. It's probably the biggest fundamental flaw in most monotheisms.