Did Muhammad actually exist?
- Thread starter Medicine*Woman
- Start date
What difference it makes what scholars they are? I know how much "research" they've done in India, I imagine Arabic is not a priority except to demonise Muslims. Heh, Mills history of India was the gold standard in the west and he did not know a single Indian language or even bother to set foot in the country. Post Israel, I doubt any westerners are keen on any objective analysis of Arab history. We don't have a very high opinion of western ethics in the East. Just compare Abdul Qadir Badauni's or Abu Rayhan Biruni's history of India with Mills to see the difference in outlook. Thanks, I'll take Arab sources over Europeans any day.
Last edited:
Science meets Superstition 101
Science meets Superstition 101
I've heard Xians say the exact same thing when scholars researched their myths as well.
*cough cough strawman cough cough*
(note: millions of "Westerners are of Arab ancestry)
We're talking about archaeological facts. Like these ones:
RE: Qur'an, the magical book that wasn't,
- No one knows when it was written.
- No one knows who wrote which parts.
- It was not considered important enough to make a clay copy (something pretty easily done, see Epic of Gilgamesh).
Oh, and that includes the Arab sources.
Michael
Science meets Superstition 101
It doesn't
Do you now?
Oooo really now?
I've heard Xians say the exact same thing when scholars researched their myths as well.
You are talking about a Historian born in the 18th century ... mid 1700s? Is this correct? Surely you'd agree scholarly endeavor has advanced a bit since then?
*cough cough strawman cough cough*
Oh, yes, now your on to it.
(note: millions of "Westerners are of Arab ancestry)
We're not talking about Western ethics nor your opinion of it.
We're talking about archaeological facts. Like these ones:
RE: Qur'an, the magical book that wasn't,
- No one knows when it was written.
- No one knows who wrote which parts.
- It was not considered important enough to make a clay copy (something pretty easily done, see Epic of Gilgamesh).
Oh, and that includes the Arab sources.
Michael
Scholarly endeavor sure has advanced. The People's history of the US of A now shows that they were under attack from Iraq and Afghanistan, that they were forced to defend themselves by invading and occupying the two military powers, after fearlessly battling the Jap rats and Reds. And everyone welcomed them with baskets of posies and garlands of roses as the valiantly liberated the oppressed and bestowed democracy on them. Hehe. Nope no lies. At all.
Facts? What facts? heh, show me something that actually reflects even a rudimentary understanding of Arab culture and history and maybe I'll take you seriously. Mostly you sound like an Orientalist. You should read that book.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalism_(book)
Facts? What facts? heh, show me something that actually reflects even a rudimentary understanding of Arab culture and history and maybe I'll take you seriously. Mostly you sound like an Orientalist. You should read that book.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalism_(book)
:wtf:
Is this like the mac-daddy of red herrings or what!?!?!?
Pleeeease.
I said, Arab or Western scholars. It don't really care. Just so long as the information is published in a reputable peer reviewed journal.
Again, Muslims/Western/Japanese/Martian whomever ... no one knows:
- No one knows when the Qaur'an was written.
- No one knows who wrote which parts.
- The Qur'an was not considered important enough to make a clay copy (something pretty easily done, see Epic of Gilgamesh).
Those are the facts as they stand.
RE: Qur'an, the magical book that wasn't,
M
As for Mohammad, the data available is that perhaps there was a person or maybe not. I tend to think there was a nomadic herdsman who conquered a couple small desert tribes in his local vicinity of perhaps a few 10s of thousands of people - at the most. He was probably venerated at some point, it happened all the time back then.
Show me a qualified historian who claims Mohammed may not have existed.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-europe_islam/mohammed_3866.jsp
http://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-europe_islam/mohammed_3866.jsp
I just posted two books published by Cambridge press, you come back with a website from OpenDemocracy.net.
Peer reviewed? No
Reputable journal? No
Citations in text? None.
True? Really hard so say.
As it hasn't been published in a peer reviewed journal this could just be crap falling from someone's arse.
NOTE: The first line is wrong, there is doubt Mohammad existed. He may be a composite character. Which was common.
Peer reviewed? No
Reputable journal? No
Citations in text? None.
True? Really hard so say.
As it hasn't been published in a peer reviewed journal this could just be crap falling from someone's arse.
NOTE: The first line is wrong, there is doubt Mohammad existed. He may be a composite character. Which was common.
You posted a website, I said may be true, but why should I waste my time reading a website when you don't even post a single citation? Am I to know all work by every author?
The authors of the book may be completely wrong their hypothesis (as I posted in my first post). That doesn't take away from the facts. Which stand as they are. If you have some additional facts, please post them, from a book or journal - that is cited.
Please SAM, do you post websites like WIKI in your science articles? No. So, why do it here on this thread?
The Post stands as summarized:
- No one knows when the Qaur'an was written.
- No one knows who wrote which parts.
- The Qur'an was not considered important enough to make a clay copy (something pretty easily done, see Epic of Gilgamesh).
- No hard evidence for the existence of the Qur'an in any form before the last decade of the seventh century.
- The tradition which places the Qur'an in its historical context is not attested to from before the middle of the eighth century.
- Islamic sources date to no earlier than 100 to 150 years posthoc.
- Most written Islamic history comes into being after the rise of the Abbasid Caliphate.
- Up untli the 8th centurey, "Arab" invaders of Persia and Byzantine didn't think of themselves as "Arabs" NOR as "Muslims" but as "Al-Muhajirun".
- The name of "Muhhamad" doesn't even make an appearance until 691.
- The Quran does not make an appearance until the turn of the 8th century (and when it does it does so only as logia and pericopes - not the whole text). This suggests that the whole story about the 'Uthmanic recension of the Quran' is just that, a story.
- Muslims and non-Muslims alike seemed think that something took place around 622 but no one seemed know just what the hell that something was.
Those are the facts.
The authors of the book may be completely wrong their hypothesis (as I posted in my first post). That doesn't take away from the facts. Which stand as they are. If you have some additional facts, please post them, from a book or journal - that is cited.
Please SAM, do you post websites like WIKI in your science articles? No. So, why do it here on this thread?
The Post stands as summarized:
- No one knows when the Qaur'an was written.
- No one knows who wrote which parts.
- The Qur'an was not considered important enough to make a clay copy (something pretty easily done, see Epic of Gilgamesh).
- No hard evidence for the existence of the Qur'an in any form before the last decade of the seventh century.
- The tradition which places the Qur'an in its historical context is not attested to from before the middle of the eighth century.
- Islamic sources date to no earlier than 100 to 150 years posthoc.
- Most written Islamic history comes into being after the rise of the Abbasid Caliphate.
- Up untli the 8th centurey, "Arab" invaders of Persia and Byzantine didn't think of themselves as "Arabs" NOR as "Muslims" but as "Al-Muhajirun".
- The name of "Muhhamad" doesn't even make an appearance until 691.
- The Quran does not make an appearance until the turn of the 8th century (and when it does it does so only as logia and pericopes - not the whole text). This suggests that the whole story about the 'Uthmanic recension of the Quran' is just that, a story.
- Muslims and non-Muslims alike seemed think that something took place around 622 but no one seemed know just what the hell that something was.
Those are the facts.
Uh just for laughs, if you had read the article:
Patricia Crone is professor of Islamic history at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton. Her publications most relevant to this article include Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam (Princeton University Press, 1987 [reprinted 2004]; "How did the quranic pagans make a living?" (Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies (68 / 2005); and "Quraysh and the Roman Army: Making Sense of the Qurashi Leathertrade" (Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, forthcoming [spring 2007]).
Patricia Crone is professor of Islamic history at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton. Her publications most relevant to this article include Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam (Princeton University Press, 1987 [reprinted 2004]; "How did the quranic pagans make a living?" (Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies (68 / 2005); and "Quraysh and the Roman Army: Making Sense of the Qurashi Leathertrade" (Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, forthcoming [spring 2007]).
SAM, I read the artical. It agrees with my assessment.Uh just for laughs, if you had read the article:
Patricia Crone is professor of Islamic history at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton. Her publications most relevant to this article include Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam (Princeton University Press, 1987 [reprinted 2004]; "How did the quranic pagans make a living?" (Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies (68 / 2005); and "Quraysh and the Roman Army: Making Sense of the Qurashi Leathertrade" (Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, forthcoming [spring 2007]).
Is there something in the list I made that you disagree with? I'm just curious if you are arguing to argue or you have a point to make.
MII
It agrees with YOUR assessment? hehe. Now I'm beginning to doubt your comprehension skills as well. I guess Patricia Crone knew what she was talking about when she mentioned grumpiness.
That is not true. We can know for sure certain historical figure did exist and some we cannot be 100% certain. It is just a matter of physical evidence. Now that does not mean they didnt exist because the means to produce sufficient evidence was not as available.
I think that he did exist. He was a military leader.
Was it pointless to ask if Jesus was real?
I mean, now that many archaeologists agree there never was a Jesus. Or, not one anyway.
It agrees with YOUR assessment? hehe. Now I'm beginning to doubt your comprehension skills as well. I guess Patricia Crone knew what she was talking about when she mentioned grumpiness.
- No one knows when the Qaur'an was written.
- No one knows who wrote which parts.
- The Qur'an was not considered important enough to make a clay copy (something pretty easily done, see Epic of Gilgamesh).
Patricia Crone:
Most importantly, we can be reasonably sure that the Qur'an is a collection of utterances that he made in the belief that they had been revealed to him by God. The book may not preserve all the messages he claimed to have received, and he is not responsible for the arrangement in which we have them. They were collected after his death – how long after is controversial.
More than likely because Mohammad was considered such a joke it's most likely that he was real, as any made up Prophetic character wouldn't have been running around with a bonner in his hand - gaining fame for his all night prowess in bed pounding his umpteen women (every Muslim knows the stories about Mo and his magical penis - don't deny it either
Patricia Crone:
a Greek text written during the Arab invasion of Syria between 632 and 634 mentions that "a false prophet has appeared among the Saracens" and dismisses him as an impostor on the ground that prophets do not come "with sword and chariot".
- No hard evidence for the existence of the Qur'an in any form before the last decade of the seventh century.
- The tradition which places the Qur'an in its historical context is not attested to from before the middle of the eighth century.
- Islamic sources date to no earlier than 100 to 150 years posthoc.
- Most written Islamic history comes into being after the rise of the Abbasid Caliphate.
Patricia Crone:
In the case of Mohammed, Muslim literary sources for his life only begin around 750-800 CE (common era), some four to five generations after his death, and few Islamicists (specialists in the history and study of Islam) these days assume them to be straightforward historical accounts.
And I also said as much.
So, I think we all agree now - good
MII