Posted on 03/29/2017 12:36:15 PM PDT by ColdOne
Indeed I did not watch the video you supplied as I am at work. But certainly from what I already understand of Islamic history, this assertion does not seem plausible. If its not a long video I may watch it when I get home.
Just state that Mohammed is a fake prophet and a child abuser.
He is an idiot, at least, for taking the class in the first place.
There are some scholars who believe that Mohammed may well not have existed and that the entire Islam thing may have been invented by a conquerer of Jerusalem in order to justify his conquest and cement his rule.
Well there certainly was a Conqueror and the invention of prophecy. But the false prophet and the conqueror appear to have been the same person.
While I do not think the flying on the winged horse was historical, I would say him claiming to be a prophet, having people killed who doubted him, having some kind of collection of moles on his back, and such are.
I started to watch that video but did not get far...its over an hour long. I am actually a fan of David Wood, who I find to be very knowledgeable and fearless in his apologetic ministry against Islam, but I never heard David Wood suggesting Mohammad was not an historical person...just that he wasn't a real prophet or even a respectable or sane person....ok lets face it, Mohammad was a moral monster.
The problem is there is no reference to him when he should have been making pretty strong waves. I suspect Ibn Malik pulled him out of a dark place on his anatomy. Jay Smith in his video indicates pretty strongly that the Arabs believed in a holy place before Malik’s time but it was Petra, not Mecca and the religion or religions that centered on petra were whatever was traditional with the Arabs at the time, probably a mix of idolatry and Christianity and Judaeism. There were Jewish and Christian cities and tribes throughout Arabia before the Arabs began to raid and conquer. There are other scholars who believe that Islam, at least in part, is of Persian origin and that the Persian Conquest was rather a deal between the Persians and the Arabs. Evidence for that is that the Persian Cities were not laid waste as were cities everywhere else in the conquered areas.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.