Muhammad. Mastermind or Prophet?

[Audie]

The history belongs to those that broke the verbal Covenant of Muhammad, not what Muhammad wanted for all humanity. The laws for the age were required to cement peace between bloodthirsty, idol worshiping, waring tribes. It is my opinion that those laws were abolished in 1844 or 1260.

Muhammad gave the way, but men wanting power did not submit to the Will of Allah and follow Ali after Muhammad passed and that is one of the greatest teachings of the Koran, submission.

The Bible foretells of this, that the religion of Muhammad would be clothed in sackcloth, Muhammad knew it would happen and put Negation before Affirmation. There is no God (negation) But God (Affirmation).

When we put away our predudices, amazing things are found and God becomes the light that guides our life, as all light is from God.

The sweet peace is now within our grasp. Humanity has been slowly progressing towards the unity of the entire human race, a unity that is required before we can find peace and security. Lets hope we hasten our unity and not a catastrophic decline in human life.

Regards Tony

Sounds sweet, but I dont think any of it is true.

 

[Audie]

Many of the Biblical stories such as Noah’s Ark and Adam and Eve were symbolical not actual events.

So some say, and others say nay.

Any indication that people thought this way before
the geologists et all showed the flood was a myth?

Then there is the whole thing of which stories are
real, which are made up, and what they might mean,
if anything, if they are made up.

No Jesus or M. bothered to mention that there
was no real flood, leaving people to worship
a psycho monster. (If there is a god, and Y.
happens to the one)

This whole explanation seems an afterthought
that does not hang together.

 

[Audie]

'Evidence' for mermaids tends not to relate to actual real world events from multiple independent sources along with all kinds of other corroborating evidence though.

As such, there isn't really much controversy as him existing as a person because there is very good evidence that he did.

Of course many of the further details do not appear in the historical record until a long time after the fact making their historicity a much more contraversial.

The actual existence of M. is less credible than for J.,
but that is irrelevant to my observation that the
stories about them has been fluffed up.

I doubt either of them would recognize themselves
in the record of their lives.

 

[Vinayaka]

The actual existence of M. is less credible than for J.,

Why is that? I've always gone by the principle of gossip changing more the further it goes along in time. The longer ago it was, the more chance it is to be inaccurate or total myth. Therefore I've always figured the possibility of M's existence to be greater than J's.

 

[Augustus]

The actual existence of M. is less credible than for J.,

It's actually slightly more.

but that is irrelevant to my observation that the
stories about them has been fluffed up.

No argument with that.

 

[dybmh]

I found an interesting article regarding Aisha's age and the Qur'an's perspective on marriage with underage girls.

Hazrat Aisha was 19, not 9

The article appears to be credible.

 

[Audie]

Why is that? I've always gone by the principle of gossip changing more the further it goes along in time. The longer ago it was, the more chance it is to be inaccurate or total myth. Therefore I've always figured the possibility of M's existence to be greater than J's.

It is not of enough interest to me to play dueling
web sites.

My only point was that the status as prophet, their
lives any sayings are fictional, even if there is a real
person in there somewhere.

 

[Vouthon]

It's actually slightly more.



No argument with that.

I think it's fairest to say that the internal Christian testimony for the existence of Jesus is far more accurate (in terms of fitting what we know of first century Judea and Second Temple Judaism) and much earlier than the Islamic accounts of Muhammad, while the external testimony for the existence of Muhammad is marginally better and earlier than the external witness of Jesus, although it puts later orthodox Islamic Hadith in major doubt given the huge discrepancies.

(And it should be noted that some recent scholars have questioned the age of some of these earliest sources mentioning Muhammad that Patricia Crone compiled in the early 1990s, including Crone herself in a later reassesment, although she still believed that Muhammad did exist, as do I).

The early accounts of Muhammad claim that he was still alive at the time of the Arabian conquest and appeared to spearheading it, whereas the Muslim accounts say he died before it, for example. The first archaelogical evidence for mosques were built facing Jerusalem, rather than Mecca, while Mecca doesn't appear to have existed as a major trading hub at the time of Muhammad.

That said, we need to factor in the fact that Jesus was a powerless Jewish peasant in a backwater buffer state of the Roman Empire, whereas Muhammad was at the vanguard of a mass movement of Arabs occupying neighbouring lands.

As such, you'd expect to have more on Muhammad, whereas we have some soundbites that have lasted from antiquity, although this may simply be due to lack of copying of texts or destruction.

In sum, the evidence indicates that both of them did exist, though.

 

[Audie]

I think it's fairest to say that the internal Christian testimony for the existence of Jesus is far more accurate (in terms of fitting what we know of first century Judea abd Second Temple Judaism) and much earlier than the Islamic accounts of Muhammad, while the external testimony for the existence of Muhammad is marginally better and earlier than the external witness of Jesus, although it puts later orthodox Islamic Hadith in major doubt given the huge discrepancies.

(And it should be noted that some recent scholars have questioned the age of some of these earliest sources mentioning Muhammad that Patricia Crone compiled in the early 1990s, including Crone herself in a later reassesment, although she still believed that Muhammad did exist, as do I).

The early accounts of Muhammad claim that he was still alive at the time of the Arabian conquest and appeared to spearheading it, whereas the Muslim accounts say he died before it, for example.

That said, we need to factor in the fact that Jesus was a powerless Jewish peasant in a backwater buffer state of the Roman Empire, whereas Muhammad was at the vanguard of a mass movement of Arabs occupying neighbouring lands.

As such, you'd expect to have more on Muhammad, whereas we have few soundbites that have lasted from antiquity, although this may simply be due to lack of copying of texts or destruction.

In sum, the evidence indicates that both of them did exist, though.

In what sense can you say that some person,
place, or event was real if only, say, 5% of the
record is true?

 

[Vouthon]

In what sense can you say that some person,
place, or event was real if only, say, 5% of the
record is true?

Because the weight of scholarly opinion still favours these early references to Muhammad or a Saracen prophet as being accurate in their original dating. If these Syrian notes are, as many or even most scholars of early Islam seem to think, actually from the time-period to which they are usually dated, then we have near-contemporaneous evidence for the existence of Muhammad.

Since coins with Muhammad's name don't start appearing until a number of decsdes after the conquest, and there might be some evidence to suggest that the term "Muhammad" was also an epithet addressed to Christ by Arabs rather than a personal name and depictions of Jesus do appear on the earliest minted coins, there is a small chance that the reference to "Arabs of Muhammad" might not refer to an actual person. But a "prophet" of the Arabians is still evidenced at this time.

The fact that a prophet was preaching among the Arabs at this time a doctrine of monotheism and in debate with Jews and Christians and polytheists, is actually rather strong from both the external and Qur'anic evidence. And the name Muhammad was likely associated with him, whether as a personal name or title.

It's just that later Muslim accounts from centuries after (as opposed to just over a decade with the Pauline letters in the case of Jesus) can't be trusted as accurate reflections of his life, since even in the Qur'an he appears to be debating with unbelievers or mushrikun in a lush, agricultural setting like that among Syrian Arabs, rather than the deserts of Mecca and Medina which weren't trading outposts yet (as depicted in Hadith) since irrigation isn't attested until well after the lifetime of the Prophet.

 

[Audie]

Because the weight of scholarly opinion still favours these early references to Muhammad or a Saracen prophet as being accurate in their original dating.

Lets try again.
Perhaps a couple millenia from now there are writings
about Vouthon.

Various people contributed lengthy verbatim
quotes, many decades after your death, even
as much as 200 yrs later.

95% of what is "known" of the Vouthon is simply
fiction, including the name.

The real vouthon would not recognize himself
in the stories of his deeds, and the quotes he never
quoted.

Would you then say the V. of legend is real,
"Yes, that's me!"

Back to my point: Loosely based on real people
or not, the stories of supernatural are just as
phony as if there was nobody at all as the person
they tell about

 

[Vouthon]

Lets try again.
Perhaps a couple millenia from now there are writings
about Vouthon.

I highly doubt that! But ok, I'll work within your hypothetical

Various people contributed lengthy verbatim
quotes, many decades after your death, even
as much as 200 yrs later.

Agreed, I've demonstrated already that the Hadith/Sunnah are practically useless if we want to understand the historical Muhammad.

95% of what is "known" of the Vouthon is simply
fiction, including the name.

The last bit is only a possibility touted by some scholars (i.e. that Muhammad was a title of Jesus among Arabs and not yet a personal name in the early 7th century). It's hotly disputed. If the Syrian notes are actually fr the date many scholars think they are, then we have near-contemporary evidence of Muhammad.

The real vouthon would not recognize himself
in the stories of his deeds, and the quotes he never
quoted.

Not entirely.

The Arabian prophet or 'Muhammad' of these early sources matches quite a few details from the Qur'an - such as his claim to prophethood, interest in Abraham, preaching of monotheism, debates with Jewish, Christian and polytheist adversaries and the fact that he used the 'sword' and took part in military campaigns etc.

But I don't deny that the specific details of his later biography - Mecca, Medina, revelation of the Qur'an in a cave etc. - are of much later origin.

Would you then say the V. of legend is real,
"Yes, that's me!"

I never once said that the Muhammad of legend was real.

What I did say was that there is likely a historical figure at the genesis of the later accounts.

Back to my point: Loosely based on real people
or not, the stories of supernatural are just as
phony as if there was nobody at all as the person
they tell about

Undoubtedly.

But supernatural miracles and events subsequently attributed to historical figures do not mean that the historical figure himself or herself never existed in the first place.

 

[Audie]

I highly doubt that! But ok, I'll work within your hypothetical



Agreed, I've demonstrated already that the Hadith/Sunnah are practically useless if we want to understand the historical Muhammad.



The last bit is only a possibility touted by some scholars (i.e. that Muhammad was a title of Jesus among Arabs and not yet a personal name in the early 7th century). It's hotly disputed.



Not entirely.

The Arabian prophet or 'Muhammad' of these early sources matches quite a few details from the Qur'an - such as his claim to prophethood, interest in Abraham, preaching of monotheism, debates with Jewish, Christian and polytheist adversaries and the fact that he used the 'sword' and took part in military campaigns etc.

But I don't deny that the specific details of his later biography - Mecca, Medina, revelation of the Qur'an in a cave etc. - are of much later origin.



I never once said that the Muhammad of legend was real.

What I did say was that there is likely a historical figure at the genesis of the later accounts.



Undoubtedly.

But supernatural miracles and events subsequently attributed to historical figures do not mean that the historical figure himself or herself never existed in the first place.

Hmm. Guess I will go elsewhere for a
Argument.

 

[Vouthon]

Hmm. Guess I will go elsewhere for a
Argument.

I'm sorry that I am unable to be more argumentative with you on this topic. Perhaps @Augustus will chime in again

 

[Vouthon]

Therefore I've always figured the possibility of M's existence to be greater than J's.

It all hinges on the proper validation of the Syrian notes that I referenced earlier in this thread. If their commonly assumed dating is correct, then we have near-contemporaneous evidence for the existence of Muhammad - at least the name from one source (and that he was a sword-wielding prophet of monotheism in debate with Jews, Christians and Polytheists, from the other.

This makes him, in all likelihood, the most certainly historical of the great religious founders of antiquity - with Jesus as the second (given that the Christian references to him are very early, with Paul's first epistle possibly having been written in 48 A.D., just over a decade after Jesus's death and then we have the somewhat later but credible secular Roman references, and the define reference to James as brother of Jesus in Josephus), and the Buddha, Zoroaster, Moses, Lao Tzu and Mahavira etc. much less certain, given that their first biographical accounts can only be dated to centuries after their deaths (like the first Muslim accounts of Muhammad)

If these Syrian notes are not accurately dated, as a minority of scholars allege, then that obviously makes Muhammad less likely to have existed, especially in light of the fact that the name Muhammad doesn't start appearing on coins until the 680s A.D.

But I think that the Syrian notes are accurate, and the majority of scholars concur that Muhammad existed - just not the Muhammad of traditional Islamic Sunnah.

 

[loverofhumanity]

So some say, and others say nay.

Any indication that people thought this way before
the geologists et all showed the flood was a myth?

Then there is the whole thing of which stories are
real, which are made up, and what they might mean,
if anything, if they are made up.

No Jesus or M. bothered to mention that there
was no real flood, leaving people to worship
a psycho monster. (If there is a god, and Y.
happens to the one)

This whole explanation seems an afterthought
that does not hang together.

The only One Who is really in a position to clarify these matters is I believe, God Himself. And from time to time and age to age He sends Divine Teachers into this world to help us see the truth which becomes muddied over time by man made rituals and superstitions.

In this age He has sent Baha’u’llah Who has clarified these things for us all so we can distinguish truth from falsehood. In His Writings He has separated that which is superstitious from that which is real and by consulting His Revelation I have found Divine answers to these topics.

At one time when people were spiritual they had a true understanding of these things but as they became more and more materialistic they lost the art of understanding the spiritual nature of these stories and descended into superstitious interpretations and understandings.

We have lost the art of understanding the spiritual significance and nature of these stories simply because we have become too materialistic.

People for the most part delight in superstitions. They regard a single drop of the sea of delusion as preferable to an ocean of certitude. By holding fast unto names they deprive themselves of the inner reality and by clinging to vain imaginings they are kept back from the Dayspring of heavenly signs. (Baha’u’llah)

 

[Audie]

The only One Who is really in a position to clarify these matters is I believe, God Himself. And from time to time and age to age He sends Divine Teachers into this world to help us see the truth which becomes muddied over time by man made rituals and superstitions.

In this age He has sent Baha’u’llah Who has clarified these things for us all so we can distinguish truth from falsehood. In His Writings He has separated that which is superstitious from that which is real and by consulting His Revelation I have found Divine answers to these topics.

At one time when people were spiritual they had a true understanding of these things but as they became more and more materialistic they lost the art of understanding the spiritual nature of these stories and descended into superstitious interpretations and understandings.

We have lost the art of understanding the spiritual significance and nature of these stories simply because we have become too materialistic.

People for the most part delight in superstitions. They regard a single drop of the sea of delusion as preferable to an ocean of certitude. By holding fast unto names they deprive themselves of the inner reality and by clinging to vain imaginings they are kept back from the Dayspring of heavenly signs. (Baha’u’llah)

All that may be true and it may not.
It has nothing to do with my post tho.
If you want to preach, then preach, but dont do it
pretending you are responding to my post.

Actually, the first thing you said is false at least to
the extent that it would take "god" to say if there
was a flood or not. There was no flood.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Its an interesting discussion about the historicity of both Muhammad and Christ. What is more relevant is the authenticity of the Quran compared to the Gospels. Put another way, to what extent does the Quran and Gospel accurately reflect the actual Teachings and Lives of Muhammad and Jesus?

The New Testament wasn't decided on until the 4th century AD. The version of the Qur'an currently in use was decided by the 3rd Caliphate Uthman within two decades of Muhammad's passing.

What commends it (Quran) so powerfully to the historian is its authenticity, not as the Word of God, of course, as the Muslims believe but as the secular historian cannot and should not, but rather as a document attesting to what Muhammad said at that time and place, early seventh-century Mecca. It is not a transcript, however; our present Quran is the result of an edition prepared under the orders of Uthman... but the search for significant variants in the partial versions extant before Uthman's standard edition, what can be called the sources behind our text, has not yielded any differences of great significance. Those Uthmanic clues are fragmentary, however, and large 'invented' portions might well have been added to our Quran or authentic material deleted. So it has been charged in fact by some Muslims who failed to find in the present Quran any explicit reference to the designation of a successor to the Prophet and so have alleged tampering with the original texts. But the argument is so patently tendentious and the evidence adduced for the fact so exiguous that few have failed to be convinced that what is in our copy of the Quran is in fact what Muhammad taught, and is expressed in his own words.

Criticism of the Quran - Wikipedia

The earliest version of the Quran is the Sana'a Manuscript. We have that lower text where radiocarbon dating places it between 578 and 669 based on 95% confidence intervals with radiocarbon dating. 669 is only 37 years after the prophet Muhammad passed away in 632!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sana'a_manuscript

Compare that to the earliest fragment of the New Testament:

The earliest manuscript of a New Testament text is a business-card-sized fragment from the Gospel of John, Rylands Library Papyrus P52, which may be as early as the first half of the 2nd century.

Biblical manuscript - Wikipedia

A tiny fragment in the second century compared to all we have available in the first century of the Islamic calendar.

Central to the argument about the historicity of the Prophets of God is the actual books that reflect Their Teachings. In that regard the evidence for the authenticity (reliability of transmission) of the Quran is much stronger than the Gospels.

 

[Audie]

Its an interesting discussion about the historicity of both Muhammad and Christ. What is more relevant is the authenticity of the Quran compared to the Gospels. Put another way, to what extent does the Quran and Gospel accurately reflect the actual Teachings and Lives of Muhammad and Jesus?

The New Testament wasn't decided on until the 4th century AD. The version of the Qur'an currently in use was decided by the 3rd Caliphate Uthman within two decades of Muhammad's passing.

What commends it (Quran) so powerfully to the historian is its authenticity, not as the Word of God, of course, as the Muslims believe but as the secular historian cannot and should not, but rather as a document attesting to what Muhammad said at that time and place, early seventh-century Mecca. It is not a transcript, however; our present Quran is the result of an edition prepared under the orders of Uthman... but the search for significant variants in the partial versions extant before Uthman's standard edition, what can be called the sources behind our text, has not yielded any differences of great significance. Those Uthmanic clues are fragmentary, however, and large 'invented' portions might well have been added to our Quran or authentic material deleted. So it has been charged in fact by some Muslims who failed to find in the present Quran any explicit reference to the designation of a successor to the Prophet and so have alleged tampering with the original texts. But the argument is so patently tendentious and the evidence adduced for the fact so exiguous that few have failed to be convinced that what is in our copy of the Quran is in fact what Muhammad taught, and is expressed in his own words.

Criticism of the Quran - Wikipedia

The earliest version of the Quran is the Sana'a Manuscript. We have that lower text where radiocarbon dating places it between 578 and 669 based on 95% confidence intervals with radiocarbon dating. 669 is only 37 years after the prophet Muhammad passed away in 632!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sana'a_manuscript

Compare that to the earliest fragment of the New Testament:

The earliest manuscript of a New Testament text is a business-card-sized fragment from the Gospel of John, Rylands Library Papyrus P52, which may be as early as the first half of the 2nd century.

Biblical manuscript - Wikipedia

A tiny fragment in the second century compared to all we have available in the first century of the Islamic calendar.

Central to the argument about the historicity of the Prophets of God is the actual books that reflect Their Teachings. In that regard the evidence for the authenticity (reliability of transmission) of the Quran is much stronger than the Gospels.

Well, look who deigns to share a few of his
pearls of Truth upon the benighted below.

We most humbly send up our thanks.

 

[Audie]

If that’s true we’re lucky to have one as enlightened as you to highlight such an error, misguided beliefs shared by nearly 60% of the world’s population. It must be great living in a high rise apartment in Hong Kong looking down at the primitive beliefs of the Muslims and Christians.

In case you forgot this