Freethought Nation

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


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:


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:


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?

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.

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

Islamic suicide bomber who killed six CIA officers was trusted CIA informant

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

Nation of Islam minister: "Kill white babies!"

Inside Mecca Part 1 of 5

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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~

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.

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.