It's pointless to ask of anyone that far back, because it's entirely unprovable. Was Caesar real?
Did Muhammad actually exist?
- Thread starter Medicine*Woman
- Start date
It's pointless to ask of anyone that far back, because it's entirely unprovable. Was Caesar real?
Asking was Caesar real is a valid question. Especially for Historians and Archaeologists.
Actually, THAT'S probably the very first question they have to ask!
Anyway, given that there is no God (or at least It doesn't really talk to people) then we really have to take stories about moon splittings and virgin births and put them into a context.
That all aside, you missed my quesion about mohammad's virility and renown libidinousness. So, have you ever heard something?
Michael
*************
M*W: Some of those people from the past may have existed, but then again, maybe they didn't. The farther back we go, the weaker their existence becomes. Forget about what was written in history books. I used to trust them to be the truth. I've learned from the past few years that standard histories have lied to us in order to perpetuate the myths of our belief systems. So, even though history books may state that so-and-so existed and did this-or-that, it may just be a smoke screen to cover-up the truth...
and no one really knows the truth.
*more Michael ranting*
So, I think we all agree now - good
MII
Whatever you say Michael, Patricia Clone has come a long way in 30 years. From maybe there was no Mohammed and it was a local anti-Persian rebellion to yes, there was a Mohammed and we have been reading the Quran all wrong, but there is strong evidence that its what he dictated. I don't expect you to change your mind anytime soon.
Stuff like this ^^^ tells me how utterly clueless you are about Arab culture and Muslim society.
But hey, go ahead, do your worst. One man with the truth is a majority.
Last edited:
Firstly, if you would have bothered to read my post you'll see if STARTED with this sentence:
Whether or not you buy into the thesis 'Hagarism' the authors nevertheless spend some serious time referencing dates and citations so you can make up your own mind.
Second, what makes you think that an anti-Persian rebellion precludes a Mohammad? It's not a case of one OR the other. There may have been a Mohammad; which I actually stated I thought was the case if you would have bothered to read my other post which states this:
Is Mohammad to go the way of Jesus AND Mosses? I don't think so. The only two Prophets of antiquity that seem plausible are Mohammad and Buddha.
So, what exactly am I supposed to change my mind on?
Thirdly, I didn't say a single word about reading the Qur'an all wrong. It's a fairytale - how can you read it wrong?
I stated this:
- No one knows when the Qur'an was written.
- No one knows who wrote which parts.
- The Qur'an was NOT considered important enough to make a clay copy.
These are simple FACTS. They're not my opinion. That's the case.
Geesh talk about red-herring delight
Here's another FACT SAM, I have been told by every single male Muslim/ex-Muslim I have ever been friends with that Mohammad was renown for his sex drive. I'm talking Shia, Sunni, Lebanese, Iranian, Palestinian, Aussie, American, etc..
So, on this point you are clueless.
"do my worse"? What the hell are you talking about.But hey, go ahead, do your worst. One man with the truth is a majority.
I stated I thought Mohammad lived because the oldest manuscripts that exist refer to him refer to him as a turd. That's IF you consider one obscure Greek text about Mohammad. It just as easily could be about anyone. It doesn't name Mohammad, it just talks about another false evil Prophet making war and killing people. AND there we go, that's the "contemporary" evidence for Mohammad - rite-e-o SAM.
It is interesting that you would hold this up - given that, if it is of Mohammad, it paints a picture of a terrorist war lord pretending to be a prophet to get people to kill some other people.
*SAM thinks* Gee some things change and some things stay the same.
So, again, to the Question: Did Mohammad really exist? the answer is probably but it's also likely he did not or that he was a compilation character made of several generals and then deified after the fact.
What's also a set of FACTS are these:
- No one knows when the Qur'an was written.
- No one knows who wrote which parts.
- The Qur'an was NOT considered important enough to make a clay copy.
This the put up or shut up that makes Science science; argumentum ad hominem all you like, those are the facts.
M
Last edited:
Hadith 1:267-70
Now, if you recall, I mentioned that the ancient Xians and Zoroastrians thought Muslims were asinine and their Prophet a pathetic joke. This is the reason why. You see, back then, they didn't realize that Mohammad was all about "Keep it Real my hommes" and "It's important to let yo hommes know you taged all yoo babes in a single night - Dat's 'bout as real as it gits bro - peace out biatchs :m:. (Famous Muhumud saying from secret invisible Qur'an guarded by frog cave next to Mormon plates)
M
Now, if you recall, I mentioned that the ancient Xians and Zoroastrians thought Muslims were asinine and their Prophet a pathetic joke. This is the reason why. You see, back then, they didn't realize that Mohammad was all about "Keep it Real my hommes" and "It's important to let yo hommes know you taged all yoo babes in a single night - Dat's 'bout as real as it gits bro - peace out biatchs :m:. (Famous Muhumud saying from secret invisible Qur'an guarded by frog cave next to Mormon plates)
M
You quoted a 1977 thesis, I quoted one from 2006, which you rejected, even though it was the same author, because you did not even look at the author or references.
That ALONE shows your bias.
You were rejecting the existence of Mohammed because you could not find something that gave evidence of his being within a few years of his death[including the direct evidence you rejected]. And now you're quoting Hadiths which were written at least 200 years after Muhammed died to support your sexual fantasies about Mohammed.
And this is somehow supposed to establish your credibility ?
That ALONE shows your bias.
You were rejecting the existence of Mohammed because you could not find something that gave evidence of his being within a few years of his death[including the direct evidence you rejected]. And now you're quoting Hadiths which were written at least 200 years after Muhammed died to support your sexual fantasies about Mohammed.
And this is somehow supposed to establish your credibility ?
SAM, hello .. SAM??? Earth to SAM ... come in SAM.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
BUT maybe I missed something. Could you please inform me of the following information:
- What is the oldest text that mentions something that may have been about Mohammad?
- When was the Qur'an was written?
- What were the names of the poeple who wrote down which parts?
- How old is the oldest Qur'an?
I know, try this SAM, instead of serving us up red herring and ad hominem attacks, simply post the dates and a reference for the dates and the names of the people who wrote the Qur'an OR concede you do not know.
See, it really is just that simple.
Michael
NOTE:
You may think I'm attacking you superstitious beleif by asking if you want to, so what, just post the dates in the next post you make or do not make another post and concede you lost the debate to me.
See how simple it works?
All the relevant information is contained in this thread.
Like I said, I don't expect you to change your mind very soon, and I have far too much experience with your bias to waste any more time in even attempting to educate you in this matter. I'm sure, with your Christian background, you would be happier occupying yourself with "sinful" thoughts of other peoples penises and how they used them.
And FYI, talking about sex to a Muslim, its not the same as the Bill and Monica Comedy Show of USAmericans.
Like I said, I don't expect you to change your mind very soon, and I have far too much experience with your bias to waste any more time in even attempting to educate you in this matter. I'm sure, with your Christian background, you would be happier occupying yourself with "sinful" thoughts of other peoples penises and how they used them.
And FYI, talking about sex to a Muslim, its not the same as the Bill and Monica Comedy Show of USAmericans.
No I didn't. I said Mohammad probably existed as he was referred to as an arse hole by his neighbors. Usually people take the time to complain about an arse hole neighbor, good chances that arse hole exists.
If you would like to look up a citation in a peer reviewed book for your letters you posted, like I asked earlier, I am still waiting for that.
That was a question directly to Norsefire if you will have noticed? It had nothing to do with Mohammad's existence but instead about his modern day reputation as a whore-dog and if that might be extrapolated to the past. As I said, his neighbors also mentioned how stupis Arabs were with their penis prophet, they were conservative Jews, Xians and Zorostrians - they probably thought it strange for muslims to be so proud about how many women their prophet could band in a night.
Something I HAVE HEARD MYSELF! Haaaa! And I agree, IMNSHO it's stupid to me too
An arsehole? Let me guess, was that because of his sexual practices or his leading people into battle? Because I know many many other people engaged in similar behaviour who were actually considered gods for the same, or affectionately addressed as "The Great"
But thans for confirmation of your bias. Not that it needed confirming.
If you think Mohammed was an arsehole, I wonder what you think of the Greeks and Romans. Not only did they flaunt their penises, they even used boys as occasional receptacles for them.
An arsehole? Let me guess, was that because of his sexual practices or his leading people into battle? Because I know many many other people engaged in similar behaviour who were actually considered gods for the same, or affectionately addressed as "The Great"
But thans for confirmation of your bias. Not that it needed confirming.
Sam, do you suck toes?
Believe it or not, I am not 1400 years old, so, it must have been Xians and Zoroastrians who called Mohammad an arse-hole War Lord, not I. Take your beef up with them.
M
I personally wouldn't put Mohammad into the war lord category. Oh, if he existed he probably killed some people. From the way I read it, Arabs were jealous they didn't have a Prophet. The Jews did. The Xians did. The Zoroastrians did. So, it was natural someone would someday fill the gap. It seems Mohammad was probably trying to unite a few small clans. What better way then to say "I'm a Prophet blah blah blah".. Augustus, Caesar, Alexander, Pharaohs, etc... they all did the same. It's only natural. Then, as with everyone else, power went to his head, he went crazy and was deified by people too simple to know better.
You see, there's a difference in my opinion and what it true. To get at the truth we like to back up opinion with peer reviewed references.
The info on the letters is available online. Its not a hidden secret, just one of the many instances of Arab history that are entirely irrelevant to scholars doing research on the subject. The one that I know of is kept in a museum in Istanbul.
I wonder how many priceless artifacts were destroyed in the libraries of Baghdad. They contained some of the oldest historical documents in the world. Comparable to the library at Alexandria, at least
I wonder how many priceless artifacts were destroyed in the libraries of Baghdad. They contained some of the oldest historical documents in the world. Comparable to the library at Alexandria, at least