Min, You're one of my favorite people here and I truly don't wish to get into fight over this. It may be that there was no Mohammed, just as I feel that there never was a historical Jesus. But even if Spencer is correct about that and some other things, it still does not alter the fact that he is a hate-filled extremist loon - just like his partner-in-crime Pam Geller

I suggest you read the book.

I have an e-version somewhere. If you like, PM an email addy and I'll send it to you.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germ...79052.html

It would appear from this that, at the least, the jury is still out. I'm going to keep looking and see what I can find from other sources, just for sake of learning about it.

The simple fact is that what we have about Big Mo is the same shit we have for jesus. Later drivel written by believers looking to prop up the basis of a new political system. Oddly, the writings in both cases begin about 80-100 years after the supposed "deaths" of the alleged founders.

Coincidence? Maybe. Or maybe just a ruler following the model employed by Roman emperors for their boy?

(January 13, 2015 at 1:31 pm)Raven Wrote: But even if Spencer is correct about that and some other things, it still does not alter the fact that he is a hate-filled extremist loon - just like his partner-in-crime Pam Geller

Which is not germane to whether or not Mohamed was a historical person, or a later creation for the sake of consolidating political power.

Loon or not, there is scant evidence and apparently some counter evidence Mo-man existed at all.

The problem with investigating this line of inquiry is as Min said - to even question the existence of Mo-man is to invite the kind, gentle Islamists to cut off your head. Hence, it's not exactly well-researched.

(January 13, 2015 at 2:11 pm)JesusHChrist Wrote:

(January 13, 2015 at 1:31 pm)Raven Wrote: But even if Spencer is correct about that and some other things, it still does not alter the fact that he is a hate-filled extremist loon - just like his partner-in-crime Pam Geller

Which is not germane to whether or not Mohamed was a historical person, or a later creation for the sake of consolidating political power.

Loon or not, there is scant evidence and apparently some counter evidence Mo-man existed at all.

The problem with investigating this line of inquiry is as Min said - to even question the existence of Mo-man is to invite the kind, gentle Islamists to cut off your head. Hence, it's not exactly well-researched.

IMO, the background of the author and the tone of the book is very important, because history requires a lot of judgement.

(January 13, 2015 at 12:31 pm)Minimalist Wrote: What was he? Archbishop of Mecca?


This video is a primer to the book of the same name. The book is well worth reading.






Oddly, like jesus to xtianity, muhammed seems a late addition to the story.

Thanks for posting that video, this one truly takes the cake. I was trying to find it; forgot that guy's name.

(January 13, 2015 at 2:43 pm)watchamadoodle Wrote:

(January 13, 2015 at 2:11 pm)JesusHChrist Wrote: Which is not germane to whether or not Mohamed was a historical person, or a later creation for the sake of consolidating political power.

Loon or not, there is scant evidence and apparently some counter evidence Mo-man existed at all.

The problem with investigating this line of inquiry is as Min said - to even question the existence of Mo-man is to invite the kind, gentle Islamists to cut off your head. Hence, it's not exactly well-researched.

IMO, the background of the author and the tone of the book is very important, because history requires a lot of judgement.

You are not going to get a book about jesus or mo being a fake from a site called Iblowjesusormoeverymorning.com. Those people have an agenda to continue putting out the same silly shit over and over.

When a holocaust denier cites Stormfront or David Duke as his source one is right to dismiss them. Spencer has not done that. He names his sources. I'm reminded of Rene Salm's "Myth of Nazareth." Jesus freaks went nuts because at one point in his life he was a piano teacher. So what? He was the first to admit that he was not an archaeologist but he did make the effort to comb through archaeological studies and report them in a popular book designed for laymen. This is what Ehrman did for historical criticism in Misquoting Jesus and Finkelstein did in The Bible Unearthed. Far too many scholars are content to write for each other. It is a problem because their work remains impenetrable for the layman.

BTW, the archaeology indicates that in the first centuries BC and AD there was a single family farm located on the site of what is now Nazareth. No city for the godboy to be from.

Again, perhaps not so coincidentally.

http://religionresearchinstitute.org/mec...eology.htm

Quote:THE HISTORY AND ARCHAEOLOGY OF ARABIA SHOW THAT MECCA DID NOT EXIST BEFORE THE ADVENT OF CHRISTIANITY.

FWIW

@Minimalist, those are good points.

Spencer is a demagogue, and as such he very much has an ax to grind. He has done very well for himself by peddling his hate-filled crap to the masses. It's his bread and butter, he has nothing else to offer anyone. He is cut from the same cloth as Michael Savage, and like him is barred from entering the UK, along with his playmate Pam Geller. Anything coming from him amounts to fruits of the poisonous tree. If Muhammad being mythical rather than actual has any veracity, then I should be able to find it for myself.

It does not much matter to me whether Muhammad ever walked the earth or not, in any practical sense. I'm satisfied that Jesus never existed, but that is not going to stop his born-again fanboys from singing his praises. And the same applies here. His followers know that they know that they know. We're stuck with them, and Islam regardless.