lots of proof he didn't exist as portrayed .
Not existing as portrayed is very different from not existing.
Whoever is the yahoo responsible for kicking off Islam is by definition the premier Mohammed
Somebody kicked it off.
Mohammed definitely existed. You don’t combat error with falsehood. Spreading the idea that he didn’t exist is counterproductive and nonsense. We can confront and confute Islam without this kind of nonsense.
The whole basis of Islam is a sham. One does not go into a cave to receive the Word of God. His Word is not delivered second hand, either. The entire ideology would be lost in the distant past, but for their inherent fanatical violence.
Well I have read many Hadiths and it seems clear to me that Muhammed existed.
Yeah I know you added the clarification that the story really states “he didn’t exist as portrayed”. But if the article misrepresents the story with a false headline then it can’t be trusted.
Cheers. :-)
Been following Jay Smith for some time.
It looks as though Islam emerged from the Arian heresy. This was a 3rd Century doctrine, associated at that time with Arab-Christians, that Jesus was (merely) the adopted son of God. The Arian heresy rejected the Trinity and, in particular, John 1:1. I invite you to reread that verse to remind yourself of just how beautiful is our religion. Constantine, then a secular ruler, called the Council of Nicea to resolve this controversy.
Anyway, by the 8th Century, rulers from Damascus transitioned from Christian unitarians to full-blown Muslims. This was during the reign of Al-Malik. You can see this transition in the coins issued by Al-Malik. Originally, with a Christian Cross (15:19 on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8fqn5C6knQ), later as Muslim coins.
Muslims, you may know, destroy archeological evidence whenever they can. This is because they know, deep down, that theirs is a fake, made-up religion, which is contradicted by archeological evidence. We saw this destruction of antiquities when ISIS came in control of Ninevah. (We do not destroy archeological evidence as we have a sense that everything that is true testifies to God. But, watch out, pantheism is another heresy. There’s a difference in seeing nature as an evidence of God, and seeing God as part of everything.)
The evidence of that Islam emerged under Al-Malik and then was redacted back to the 6th Century is repressed by Muslims as on the wikipedia article on Arab coins. That article is a total lie. As long as Muslims lie about the origins of their religion, they cannot be trusted in anything.
So, who is the founder of Islam? It is Al-Malik. Was there a person named Mohammed who led the Arab conquest of the Arabian peninsula, Palestine and other parts of the near east? Maybe or maybe not. All records to a person named “Mohammed” of about that time are to persons from Iraq and such, not to a person from the Arabian peninsular.
(There are references to Mahmod, meaning the annointed one, going far back in history. But these references are often to the Messiah, that is, to Jesus.)
Yes, the delusional, lying, murderous, child molester did exist, unfortunately.
I’d like to see a cage match between Mohammed and Jesus. I think that MTV might have done that on their claymation show “Celebrity Boxing.” Who’s your money on?
There is no contemporaneous evidence that Mohammed ever existed. Plenty of records on the Arab conquests of the 7th century. But nothing about Mo himself until 60-80 years after he supposedly transitioned to Muslim paradise.
Homer didn’t write the Odyssey, but somebody else named Homer did. Same thing here. Muhammed didn’t write the Koran, but somebody else, possibly also named Muhammed, did. Somebody wrote it, and I don’t think it was Allah.
Thanks for posting. I remember when Newsweek, or some such, asked if Jesus Christ actually lived. The historicity of Jesus was probably not a pleasant topic when first introduced. Now however, the fact of his life is established as history. The same cannot be said of Muhammad.
A lot of this detailed analysis goes over my head, but I think I have the general picture. What you would like to have:
A) Eyewitness testimony. I believe the gospels of Mathew and John apply. If not that, at least something close. For example, I think Mark wrote down what the eye-witness Peter heard and saw.
B) A written record from the time, or at least from a nearby time. I think the four gospels, Acts, and the writings of Paul are examples. Also, the writings of Roman and Jewish historians.
A record written at a much later date and place attributed back is suspect. While Thomas existed, there is no good argument that he authored the so-called gospel of Thomas.
The historicity of Muhammad comes up very short. The same for the understanding of Mecca. It seems that all the written texts were created and systematized many centuries after the fact and from hundreds of miles away. There are no eyewitness accounts and no contemporary writing. It’s kind of like picking up some gay bible written in 1980 that reports that Jesus was gay. In either case, we are talking about a fabrication.
Many reputable scholars say that Mecca and Medina did not exist in the supposed time of Muhammad!