Did Muhammad actually exist?

[S.A.M.]

You want to learn about religion?

Learn from the East:

Muhammad is mentioned by name in the Hindu scriptures in several aspects. Muhammad appears with the names Amad and Mahāmad.[182] Thus, Muhammad is mentioned, as Mahāmad (the ultimate Amad), in III.3.3.5-27 of the Bhavishya Purana text. The passage is aware of Muhammad's Arabian origin, and portrays him as an epithet of Brahma. It states that Muhammad will redevelop religion for the Arya Dharma people, and will destroy the worship of idols. It then refers to the other religions as Malechhas (non-Aryan) who have brought a powerful enemy Tripurāsura whom Mahamad has brought a great blessing to kill. It then explains the Malechhas religion as dharmadūṣaka ("polluter of righteousness"), a preceptor of paiśācadharma ("ghoulish religion"), that spoils the land of the Arabs.[183][184][185]

In a variety of views of Hinduism held on Muhammad, scholars assert that the prophet was none else than the Narashan rishi of the Vedas[186] One of the prominent Vaishnava proponents, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada maintained that Mohammad and Jesus, were empowered representatives of God, saktiavesa avataras.[187] Some translate the phrase "the last prophet", suggesting that Vedic deity Agni is none other but Muhammad.[188] In 1926 Siddiq Hussain's two-volume Kannada book, Ja at Guru Sarwar-i 'Alam, argued that the Muhammad was actually Kalki Avatar whose arrival had been predicted in the Hindu scriptures.[189] On the other hand Mirza Ghulani Ahmad argued that Rama and Krishna were prophets of God who had foretold the arrival of Muhammad as God's last law-bearing prophet.[190]

Muhammad is also linked to the passage of the Rig Veda declaring that Narashan rishi will arrive as the "last divine messenger" (antim deva duta), who shall "dispel all darkness" and "conquer death".[191] Bahá'ís venerate Muhammad as one of a number of prophets or "Manifestations of God", but consider his teachings to have been superseded by those of Bahá'u'lláh.[192] The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints considers Muhammad, along with Confucius, the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, to have received a portion of God's light and that moral truths were given to them to enlighten nations and bring a higher level of understanding to individuals.[193] Guru Nanak, the founder of Sikhism, viewed Muhammad as an agent of the Hindu supreme being Brahman.[194]

Compare that to western "scholars"

 

[Michael]

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

Surely you are not about to suggest the archeologist's are so inept?

As for the letter in the museum, do you have a link that talks about when it was found, who found it, what date it was carbon dated to, where that info is published, which journal, etc...?

 

[S.A.M.]

Maybe that info burned down in Baghdad. But don't worry, there is plenty of scholarly enterprise to sustain you.

Here:

The biographical knowledge about Muhammad in the learned, Latin circles of the Middle Ages in Europe, was remarkably precise to some extent and a good amount of concrete data about his life was known. Learned European circles of the time interpreted the data in such a way that Muhammad was viewed as a charlatan who, being driven by ambition and eagerness for power, seduced the Saracens into his submission under a religious guise.[14] This knowledge about Muhammad's life in the Latin theological texts was not reflected in the popular literature of the Middle Ages where Muhammad was viewed as an idol or one of the heathen gods.[14] Some medieval Christians said he had died in 666, alluding to the number of the beast, instead of 632;[173] others changed his name from Muhammad to Mahound, the "devil incarnate".[174] Bernard Lewis writes "The development of the concept of Mahound started with considering Muhammad as a kind of demon or false god worshipped with Apollyon and Termagant in an unholy trinity."[175] A later medieval works, Livre dou Tresor represents Muhammad as a former monk and cardinal.[14] Dante's Divine Comedy (Canto XXVIII), puts Muhammad, together with Ali, in Hell "among the sowers of discord and the schismatics, being lacerated by devils again and again."[14]

Now that should make your heart beat faster.

 

[Michael]

all of your sources are from well after the 7-8th century. which is fine if you're doing a study on what did people in the middle ages in European or China or wherever think of Mohammad. That's not what the OP is asking. They are asking for the earliest recorded information and the citations to back it up.

As it stand, it seems to be a Greek manuscript referring to an obscure war lord.

Isn't that interesting? The the earliest writings about Mohammad were that he was a terrorist? huh? Was Jesus or Buddha seen as such? Maybe? Most people that try to buck the system are. That said, I don't remember Jesus or Buddha ever murdering fellow humans.

 

[S.A.M.]

Just pointing out the "sources" of your peer reviewed literature.

Jesus was crucified as a dissident and recreated 300 years later. Buddha dumped his wife and kid because death and illness and old age was too "stressful" for him.

 

[Michael]

Just pointing out the "sources" of your peer reviewed literature.

I quoted a book. Look it up if you want.

Now, can you give me a book to look up?

Jesus was crucified as a dissident and recreated 300 years later. Buddha dumped his wife and kid because death and illness and old age was too "stressful" for him.

And there you go, you're more than smart enough to realize it's all covered in smoke and myth ... until it's you're own superstition.

 

[Michael]

Anyway, I wouldn't mind reading a book on these supposed letters from Mohammad's wife or his friends or someone to someone else.

 

[Syzygys]

What was the name of that guy who invented television?

Say electricity, and we have a winner.

Not that I doubt, but so far no evidence was presented for the original question... (I am still on page 4th)

Edit: OK, it took 72 posts before we had an ontopic response, and Sam finally did it in post #73. Congratulation....

 

[Michael]

Say electricity, and we have a winner.

Not that I doubt, but so far no evidence was presented for the original question... (I am still on page 4th)

Edit: OK, it took 72 posts before we had an ontopic response, and Sam finally did it in post #73. Congratulation....

HaaaHaaa! that cntl-c WIKI paste .... keep reading...

 

[S.A.M.]

I quoted a book. Look it up if you want.

Now, can you give me a book to look up?

You're effing kidding me, right? Do you even read the posts? At all? Did you miss the three book references? :bugeye:

 

[John99]

Well I know how important this stuff us to people. And i certainly do not claim to know what is true and whjat is false.

For me, i just never thought about religion or expected to become religious. O)ne thing recently that stuck out in my mind was a link that stated all the times that the Quran tell people to lie.

 

[(Q)]

O)ne thing recently that stuck out in my mind was a link that stated all the times that the Quran tell people to lie.

It is supposed to be that no Muslim shall ever lie to another Muslim, under any circumstances. However, that courtesy does not extend to non-believers, which has been made evident here, ad nauseum. If Islam is threatened in any way, Muslims are encouraged to lie to settle the difference. It matters not what is told to non-believers, as long as it creates the impression of a non-threat to Islam.

And as much as it is purported that lying is forbidden between Muslims, would we be seeing the dissent, the bickering and the violence between Muslim sects if they were, at the very least, being honest with one another?

 

[Michael]

You're effing kidding me, right? Do you even read the posts? At all? Did you miss the three book references? :bugeye:

I am asking for a book reference concerning the letters, other than the on line Scribd site. I want a book I can look up specifically concerning the letters.

Also, the Scribd site begins by asking for Allah's blessing on The Prophet prior to presenting the "evidence" of letters. This is not scientific, it's pure biased. I don't see a single thing about carbon dating, there is nothing on who made the discovery, where, when, how it was documented. Throughout the "book" Mohammad is venified.

In short, this online-book looks more like propaganda.

1) If these are contemporary letters, then why doesn't Patricia Crone refer to them?
2) Why does the letter refer to Muslims when at that time proto Muslims referred to themselves as Al-Muhajirun, it wasn't until the 8th century that Al-Muhajirun are then referred to Muslims.
3) Carbon dating
4) Where, when, who made each discovery.


So, I'll ask again, do you have a reference that actually has some peer reviewed credibility?

 

[Michael]

RE: Did Muhammad actually exist?

An American analogy: Imagine that the very first accounts of the US Constitutional Convention of 1787 were just now, in 2008, written down; add to this, the context of these debates were now over interpretation of the Constitution and there were many political heads on the line. Try not to forget people lived to the ripe age of about 33 years, were very very superstitious, illiterate and NEEDED a history of Mohammad to justify their own rule.

Just to put things into perspective.

Why do you think there is no answer to the question: When was the Qur'an written, who wrote what? Because Islam is built on myths on top of myths just as are all other religions.

 

[DiamondHearts]

Muslims are forbidden to lie in debate. Lying is only acceptable when there is a threat of physical danger against an individual.

It has no bearing on this debate, hence the point should be ignored.

Quran says "O You who believe! Have taqwa (awareness, trust, etc.) with Allah, and be among the truthful." (Surat al- Tawbah:119).

http://www.islaam.com/Article.aspx?id=430

 

[S.A.M.]

Well I know how important this stuff us to people. And i certainly do not claim to know what is true and whjat is false.

For me, i just never thought about religion or expected to become religious. O)ne thing recently that stuck out in my mind was a link that stated all the times that the Quran tell people to lie.

Please post the link. Ta.

 

[S.A.M.]

I am asking for a book reference concerning the letters, other than the on line Scribd site. I want a book I can look up specifically concerning the letters.

So, I'll ask again, do you have a reference that actually has some peer reviewed credibility?

Yeah, the Hadiths, they even tell you the level of credibility, unlike western "scholars" who merely quote rubbish.

 

[(Q)]

Lying is only acceptable...

You see, John, even Muslims will admit their religion considers lying as an option. Utterly reprehensible. A very bad ideology, indeed.

It has no bearing on this debate, hence the point should be ignored.

On the contrary, it has every bearing on this debate and every other debate. Mulsims have been lying on this forum since they joined, that's nothing new. You can't be trusted to tell the truth, ever. Simple, really.

 

[S.A.M.]

Do you never lie, (Q)?

Do you tell the truth even if it will cause conflict, break a marriage, hurt feelings or destroy confidence?

 

[(Q)]

Do you never lie, (Q)?

No, I don't. And I'm sure that concept is foreign to you.

Do you tell the truth even if it will cause conflict, break a marriage, hurt feelings or destroy confidence?

That is entirely irrelevant to the fact that your religion promotes lying.