It is currently Sun Jan 22, 2017 3:57 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 921 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 ... 62  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Jan 03, 2010 2:43 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2142
The Non-Historicity of Mohammed/Muhammad

A very courageous German Muslim "revert" scholar, now unconverted, came out publicly questioning the historical existence of Mohammed - and immediately went into hiding.

German Muslim Says Mohammed Never Existed

Quote:
Islamic Theologian’s Theory: It’s Likely the Prophet Muhammad Never Existed

MÜNSTER, Germany — Muhammad Sven Kalisch, a Muslim convert and Germany’s first professor of Islamic theology, fasts during the Muslim holy month, doesn’t like to shake hands with Muslim women and has spent years studying Islamic scripture. Islam, he says, guides his life.

So it came as something of a surprise when Prof. Kalisch announced the fruit of his theological research. His conclusion: The Prophet Muhammad probably never existed.

Muslims, not surprisingly, are outraged. Even Danish cartoonists who triggered global protests a couple of years ago didn’t portray the Prophet as fictional. German police, worried about a violent backlash, told the professor to move his religious-studies center to more-secure premises.

“We had no idea he would have ideas like this,” says Thomas Bauer, a fellow academic at Münster University who sat on a committee that appointed Prof. Kalisch. “I’m a more orthodox Muslim than he is, and I’m not a Muslim.”

I have known about this debate for many years, having briefly raised it in an article with quotes from Islam, specifically as concerns the Russian scholar N.A. Morozov:

Quote:
...until the Crusades Islam was indistinguishable from Judaism and... only then did it receive its independent character, while Muhammad and the first Caliphs are mythical figures...

Apparently, Western scholarship has moved apace since then. In an article by Christopher Hitchens about the hopefully pending death of the Islamic Republic of Iran, a commenter makes the following intriguing remarks:

Quote:
Posted By: Oldspeak @ 01/03/2010 11:45:25 AM

It would probably be helpful if Westerners stopped indulging the notion that Mohammed was a real historical figure. He was made up by the late 7th century caliphate to justify rule along blood lines. Western scholars are skeptical of his historicism. There is no contemporary evidence that he existed. There are no writings of Mohammed, no eyewitness accounts, no contemporary references to him or his actions by historians (of which there were many) inside or outside that part of the world. There are no coins, no artifacts, no buildings in his name, nothing. His case is based strictly on hearsay, forgeries, and absurd interpretations of authentic documents (e.g., the Jacobi Doctrine), and the Mohammed story contradicts many known facts about the region at the time. For example, there was no Mecca in the early 7th century. The first references to him occur about five decades after his supposed death. The oldest known Koran, the Sana'a, was written on palimpset, an erasable parchment. The parchment dates from the late 7th century. The calligraphic writings on it date around 710 ACE, and there are differences with the standard Koran. This is best explained by an ambitious caliphate collating Christian-influenced religious doctrines that had been in circulation, and solidifying it with a compelling story of a divine prophet, to whom they claimed relation.

People have a right to believe what they want to believe, but if they are going to act violent based on certain doctrines, then I don't see that we have any choice but to discredit the doctrines.

The question is begged, of course, why Western scholars are so eager to apply serious scientific inquiry to the question of Mohammed's existence, while resisting with all their might the same logical study concerning Jesus Christ? Especially when there is in fact far more evidence for the existence of Mohammed than for Jesus?

This debate is a reflection of cultural programming pure and simple. Just remember that fact next time someone raises the tired and false argument that "no credible scholar questions the existence of Jesus Christ." I submit that the lack of questioning this historicity in the face of so little evidence is a sign that the scholar is not credible.

Here is a long thread about the debate concerning Mohammed's historicity:

Is Mohammed a Man or Myth?

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 03, 2010 10:01 pm 
Offline
Isis

Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 3:42 am
Posts: 1006
Of course I agree with your summation of the lack of credibility of those who will not scientifically investigate the existence of Jesus. However, I would encourage them on their track with Moohammed, if only to throw the dirt back in their face about their negligence toward that aforementioned fiction, not to mention the older one the story is supposed to arise out of. We could have a 'scientific' war going on here, if we could encourage each religous adherent to questioning the credibilty of each their foes' special characters and and literature. That would be great fun and more interesting than physical assaults!

Let science do it's work, wether it is people of some sort of religous background or secularists not beholden to any of them. Some of those scholars with a religous bent could actually come away like the aforementioned scholar with a strong heretical doubt because I believe, like Muslims, Christians and Jews, they have never read the crap they are fed--the books upon which their faiths are based with a normal everyday rational thinking they would apply to anything else, if they were true to themselves.

_________________
"They must find it difficult...those who have taken authority as truth, rather than truth as the Authority." -- Gerald Massey, Egyptologist
http://www.myspace.com/skullnboner


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 1:41 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 5186
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
What comes to my mind after reading this is that this "world's tallest tower" along with the largest Mosque in the western world in London is all evidence that Islam is planning on being the dominant force on earth. That's what all this "largest" structure symbolism is all about. This new tower is twice as tall as the Empire State building.

Dubai renames world's tallest tower Burj Khalifa
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ml_dubai_tallest_building


_________________
Astrotheology.Net
Mythicists United
Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
2015 Astrotheology Calendar
Astrotheology Calendar Special
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube
The Mythicist Position


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 5:30 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 5186
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Islamic suicide bomber who killed six CIA officers was trusted CIA informant

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/01/islam ... rmant.html

_________________
Astrotheology.Net
Mythicists United
Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
2015 Astrotheology Calendar
Astrotheology Calendar Special
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube
The Mythicist Position


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 11:52 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2142
Nation of Islam minister: "Kill white babies!"

Quote:
Nation of Islam Minister Khallid Muhammad giving his infamous Kill the White Man speech in 1996. He was publically supported by the likes of Al Sharpton, Keith Ellison, Cynthia McKinney. When Khallid died in 2001, Al Sharpton rushed to his bed side and gave $10,000 to pay for his funeral. The media hides the rampant extremism of the black community.

www.cofcc.org


_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 1:51 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 5186
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Inside Mecca Part 1 of 5


_________________
Astrotheology.Net
Mythicists United
Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
2015 Astrotheology Calendar
Astrotheology Calendar Special
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube
The Mythicist Position


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 8:36 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 1:32 am
Posts: 1987
Location: U.S.A.
I can't believe people believe that crap. Not only that, they bastardized the Hebrew version of the story. Hagar was not Abraham's wife, but his wife's (Sarah) slave/servant. That is only for starters, but whatever the case, they butchered the story, probably in an effort to not only legitimize Islam, but also slavery- thus "to submit". Apparently the only way to do that is to attempt to make the bastard son not a bastard is by bastardizing the original story.

I hate to say this, because I despise violence, but it maybe the only way to end the violence of Islam is to bomb Mecca to the ground.

_________________
Mriana

Nonviolence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man. ~ Gandhi

Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages. ~ Thomas A. Edison


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 8:01 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2142
It seems many of us are feeling the same, Mriana. The brainwashing is so thick it sometimes seems it is fruitless to try to reason fanatics out of their illness.

They need to be quarantined and kept on a short leash.

Dr. Ali Sina is certain that Islam will lose its steam, and he sees what is happening in Iran as a sign, as does Amil Imani.

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 8:19 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 1:32 am
Posts: 1987
Location: U.S.A.
How is that losing steam? I'm not so sure how, because they are seem so strong in their beliefs, screaming about their god from rooftops.

_________________
Mriana

Nonviolence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man. ~ Gandhi

Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages. ~ Thomas A. Edison


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 8:30 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2142
That's the same thing I asked Amil - he says its for show because millions of Iranians are sick of Islam. I did read the comments from an Iranian schoolteacher who said millions would convert away from Islam if they were allowed to with capital punishment hanging over their heads!

Imagine a more modern cult trying to pull that crap! "Stay in our cult, or we will kill you."

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 8:42 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 1:32 am
Posts: 1987
Location: U.S.A.
Well if people deconverted by the millions how could they all be killed?

_________________
Mriana

Nonviolence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man. ~ Gandhi

Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages. ~ Thomas A. Edison


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 6:28 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2142
Mriana wrote:
Well if people deconverted by the millions how could they all be killed?

I think that's the idea with popular uprisings! Power to them in this case.

There is great hope in seeing one country shed its disgraceful Islamic enslavement.

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 7:44 pm 
Offline
Newbie

Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 12:45 pm
Posts: 6
Don't know if it was linked yet, but...

http://thereligionofpeace.com/

Yes yes yes, Christianity isn't without sin, but I would despise it as much as I do Islam should it be doing the same today.

~Michael~


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 11:09 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2142
Thank you, Michael. Certainly we know about TROP.com, but another link is fine.

Here was a great op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal.

Quote:
Islamic Christianophobia
The world ignores the persecution of Christians in the Muslim world.

In Egypt, seven Coptic Christians were murdered yesterday by a Muslim gunman as they filed out of a midnight mass in the southern town of Nag Hamadi. In Pakistan, more than 100 Christian homes were ransacked by a Muslim mob last July in the village of Bahmaniwala. In Iraq that same month, seven Christian churches were bombed in Baghdad and Mosul in the space of three days.

Such atrocities—and there are scores of other examples—are grim reminders that when it comes to persecution, few groups have suffered as grievously as Christians in Muslim lands. Fewer still have suffered with such little attention paid....

In its annual World Watch List, Open Doors ranks eight Muslim countries among the 10 worst persecutors of Christians. The other two, North Korea (which tops the list) and Laos, are communist states. Of the 50 countries on the list, 35 are majority Muslim.

Take Iran, which this year ranks as the world's second-worst persecutor of Christians. Open Doors reports that in 2009 the Islamic Republic arrested 85 Christians, many of whom were also mistreated in prison. In 2008, some 50 Christians were arrested and one Christian couple was beaten to death by security officials. At least part of the reason for the mistreatment appears to be the result of Muslim conversions to Christianity: Apostasy carries a mandatory death sentence in Iran.

In Saudi Arabia (No. 3), all non-Muslim public worship is forbidden. The state forbids the building of any type of non-Muslim house of worship, and Christian expatriates in the kingdom must practice their faith in private. The same goes in the Maldives, where the report notes that all citizens must be Muslim; "the handful of indigenous Christians are forced to believe in complete secrecy." Similarly in Mauritania, conversion to Christianity or any other religions is formally punishable by death....

It might seem natural that at least some attention would be paid in the West to the plight of these Christians. Instead, attention seems endlessly focused on "Islamophobia," not least at the U.N.'s misnamed Human Rights Council. In November, much of Europe went berserk over the Swiss referendum to ban the construction of minarets (though not of mosques). But the West's tolerance for its large Muslim populations stands in sharp contrast to the Muslim world's bigotry and persecution of its own religious minorities. That's a fact that ought to be borne in mind the next time Westerners berate themselves about their own supposed "intolerance."

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Apologist for Khalid
PostPosted: Sun Jan 10, 2010 11:37 pm 
Offline
Bast

Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:12 pm
Posts: 147
As no fan of Dr. Khalid Muhhamed I thought I could offer him some defense. My heart goes out to his son who appears behind him in a good number of his videos, I hope he finds a peaceful path. Regarding Khalid I would ask the reader to put there selves in his shoes. We can safely assume that, from an early age, Khalid saw a world in which those with darker toned skin had less of a ‘quality of life’, such as lacking access to wealth and natural resources. Seeing this inequality, resulting in a lack of judicial, social and natural resources it is reasonable to assume, that Khalid, believed a war against “whites” was justified.

If we jump to the other side of the racial spectrum we have separatist like Dr. David Both Duke and Khalid, putting aside the dangers of half truths and claims of a racial superiority, and on some assertions being out in left field, he like Khalid, actually has some good points. I believe it could rightly be said that his rhetoric is, although in a broad sense similar, less threatening than was Khalid’s. I believe that the reason for this is that although the case can be made that “whites” today are discriminated against, in the name of quotas, affirmative action, and racial equality, I do not think many would argue that so called “whites” have less access to resources than “blacks”. But there is no doubt in my mind that if around the world Dr. Duke’s “whites” faced the circumstances faced by “blacks” that he would likewise hype up his rhetoric. The reverse is seen by the election of Obama in which the New Black Panther Party, formerly led by Khalid, if not totally abandoning threatening speech, has, at the very least severely toned down its rhetoric. This supports their claim that they are not “racists” rather in search of change and equality of law.

To further my defense of Khalid’s rhetoric I offer a defense for the man named Mumia Abu Jamal who was convicted for murdering Philadelphia policeman Daniel Faulkner. I am somewhat familiar with the charges against him and have little doubt that an incident occurred very similar to the one alleged by the city of Philadelphia. Nonetheless, often overlooked is the fact that, before the murder of Daniel Faulkner Mr. Jamal was being illegally spied upon. Within American law it has long been recognized that freemen have the right to assemble, unfettered speech, etc,. and I would further remind the reader that the often romanticized document called the Federal Constitution, or the Constitution FOR the United States is not applicable here, and for this, those of us from Pennsylvania, have to thank both Ben Franklin and Thomas Paine who both had a hand in the second sentence (Art. 1 Sec. 2) of the Pa. Constitution (influenced Va. RI. State const. & Fed), which was established law in 1776 and declared “indefeasible” long before the Aristocratic Fed Const (which it influenced). In other words, as a matter of law, those spying on Mr. Jamal (Feds and City), by illegally spying on him, fueling his justified paranoia, are partly responsible for the death of policeman Faulkner, and may actually be greatly responsible for Mr. Jamals life-long circumstances. We may further extend this line of thinking to Khalid whose person was also illegally violated in a similar manner.

Here, the reader may be shocked, and should naturally ask, “when dose a person’s or a group’s rhetoric become so threatening that acts of spying are justified?”. Although a hard pill to swallow, the answer of course is never, and this would add to the overall protection of the people within the U.S. and serve as a standard to the world. But we do not currently have a Jeffersonian Republic, a gov. cannot have both “utter transparency” and “secret gov. authorities” and so, the United States, which use to be associated with the former, is now, marked and judged by the latter.

The reader may also apply this to the world’s savage terrorists, a great deal of whom call themselves Muslim. Let us walk away from the spying in the Muslim church in their places and homes, etc..let us pull out at once, and let us also loudly declare our dying defense for human rights and equality of law. And when or if we get attacked, let us methodically, according to criminal law, prosecute the murderers together with a national vigor.

Back to Khalid, his teachings seem to be contrived and somewhat skewed; his false folk etymology he gives to the word PICNIC, his play on the title of Holocaust as second to the black holocaust (I agree), which he states was a ‘hell of a cost’, would play great at a Def Comedy Jam, but his instigation of violence against whites was somewhat dangerous, but understandable through the historical context in which we judge other figures. Leaders such as Ghandi and Dr. King are considered great because their means of a non-violent resistance to oppression were not the norm. Many of histories leaders, whose people were oppressed, spoke a similar call to arms as did Khalid, yet a great number are accepted in their historical contexts as leaders of a people.

I agree that the world would be much better off without those who preach violence but given that no ones mouth should ever be bound, it is better off that they feel free to speak so damagingly in public because it is better to know your enemy. And so when speech is driven underground we should expect to find fanaticism on the rise.

Anyway, maybe I'm being naïve? Just a few thoughts.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 921 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 ... 62  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Truth Be Known | Stellar House Publishing
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Live Support