It wasn't Mohammed who founded Islam.

[pocaracas]

The things you find when you're looking for them...

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122669909279629451

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.
[...]
Prof. Kalisch, who insists he's still a Muslim, says he knew he would get in trouble but wanted to subject Islam to the same scrutiny as Christianity and Judaism. German scholars of the 19th century, he notes, were among the first to raise questions about the historical accuracy of the Bible.

Many scholars of Islam question the accuracy of ancient sources on Muhammad's life. The earliest biography, of which no copies survive, dated from roughly a century after the generally accepted year of his death, 632, and is known only by references to it in much later texts. But only a few scholars have doubted Muhammad's existence. Most say his life is better documented than that of Jesus.
[...]
He had no doubts at first, but slowly they emerged. He was struck, he says, by the fact that the first coins bearing Muhammad's name did not appear until the late 7th century -- six decades after the religion did.

He traded ideas with some scholars in Saarbrücken who in recent years have been pushing the idea of Muhammad's nonexistence. They claim that "Muhammad" wasn't the name of a person but a title, and that Islam began as a Christian heresy.

Prof. Kalisch didn't buy all of this. Contributing last year to a book on Islam, he weighed the odds and called Muhammad's existence "more probable than not." By early this year, though, his thinking had shifted. "The more I read, the historical person at the root of the whole thing became more and more improbable," he says.

He has doubts, too, about the Quran. "God doesn't write books," Prof. Kalisch says.

This... from way back in 2008.

[ManMachine]

As I understand the facts there is no evidence that Mohammed was the driving force behind Islam. Islam expanded through Egypt, Palestine, North Africa, Persia, etc., before 700 ad, but this expansion was not described by contemporary writers are being driven by the teachings of Mohammed and there was no mention of the Koran. Mohammed doesn't come into the picture until 697 ad, 65 years after his supposed death. The Mosques were rebuilt early in the 8th century to face Mecca (not shortly after Mo's death). Commentators in the early 700s complained that the Quraysh tribe from Arabia were trying to take over and were inventing stories about Mohammed. The Koran, I am convinced, was written around 770 ad by a single individual of very high status. I think Nestorians were more likely to have been the original founding force behind Islam. Mohammed's lot came later ... and appear to have rewritten history to suit themselves.

This is not surprising, as a parallel it wasn't Jesus who started Christianity, it was St Peter or St James, depending on which denomination you follow.

MM

[Minimalist]

If Muhammad being mythical rather than actual has any veracity, then I should be able to find it for myself.

Do you speak and read Syriac, Arabic and Greek? Are you familiar with 2,000 years of history/archaeology in the ANE? Lacking those skills will seriously impede any such inquiry. Like myself, you are then reliant on the work of other scholars. Dismissing the propaganda of believers who, just like xtians, insist that their bullshit is true and for evidence point to their holy horseshit in an endless circle jerk, you find a small circle of scholars who are willing to risk the fanaticism of the muslims to question their fantasies. Spencer seems to give a consistent reading of the general trend of such scholarship.

One suggestion he made has to do with the late Roman practice of driving out heretical xtian groups if they couldn't kill them. The region at the time was split between the xtian Roman empire and the Zoroastrian Persians. One of the few places to get away from either was the Arabian peninsula. His suggestion is that heretical xtians sought refuge there and suddenly found themselves two centuries later with an opportunity after the Byzantines and Persians had bled each other white in a series of wars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine%E...anian_wars

The devastating impact of this last war, added to the cumulative effects of a century of almost continuous conflict, left both empires crippled. When Kavadh II died only months after coming to the throne, Persia was plunged into several years of dynastic turmoil and civil war. The Sassanids were further weakened by economic decline, heavy taxation from Khosrau II's campaigns, religious unrest, rigid social stratification, and the increasing power of the provincial landholders. The Roman Empire was even more severely affected, with its financial reserves exhausted by the war, the Balkans now largely in the hands of the Slavs, Anatolia devastated by repeated Persian invasions, and the empire's hold on Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine and Egypt loosened by many years of Persian occupation. Neither empire was given any chance to recover, as within a few years they were struck by the onslaught of the Arabs, newly united by Islam.

It is that last phrase that is in question.

[Rayaan]

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

Not really. That is not the actual purpose of the religion. The main purpose of the religion is for assisting moral and internal purification by cultivating higher levels of God-consciousness, and with that earn Paradise.

The problem is always the same, that no matter what institution you're talking about - religion, politics, education, the media, etc. - there are always a few power hungry folks who want to monopolize and use these institutions as tools to force their will on everyone else and gain some profit out of it. But Islam itself was not meant to be a power game. Rather, it is exactly the opposite of that:

"That abode of the afterlife – We grant it to those who do not desire exaltedness upon the earth nor to cause corruption in it. And the best outcome is for those who are righteous." (Surah 28:83)

And what is righteousness?

"Righteousness is not that you turn your faces toward the east or the west, but righteousness is in one who believes in Allah, the Last Day, the angels, the Book, and the prophets and gives wealth, in spite of love for it, to relatives, orphans, the needy, the traveler, those who ask [for help], and for freeing slaves, and who establishes prayer and gives charity, those who fulfill their promise when they promise; and those who are patient in poverty and hardship and during battle. Those are the ones who have been true, and it is those who are the righteous." (Surah 2:177)

Note that the verse above puts a special emphasis on giving, which, again, is directly opposed to the desire to consolidate political power and money and things of that sort.

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.

I agree. He's just another clown dressed up in a black suit, who delights in biased re-writing of history while putting on a fake impression of neutral scholarship and a blustering confidence that's been exposed already. That's why not even the non-Muslims really cares about what he says. Almost all of the arguments he used against the historicity of Muhammad can be applied to Moses and Jesus, too, but I doubt he'll admit that since he himself is a disingenuous religious religion-hater. And I've already easily debunked one of his more 'compelling' arguments that the Islamic texts (or rather his own cherry-picked hadiths) are nothing more than a means of political posturing by various religious and ethnic groups.

[Minimalist]

Not really. That is not the actual purpose of the religion. The main purpose of the religion is for assisting moral and internal purification by cultivating higher levels of God-consciousness, and with that earn Paradise.

Rayaan, I love ya, man. But sometimes you are so engagingly naive. Religion is, and always has been, about power. In the real world...not in some crazy "afterlife."

[robvalue]

Yeah... what you think religion is about is exactly what they want you to think, so you don't notice what is actually going on.

[JesusHChrist]

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

Not really. That is not the actual purpose of the religion. The main purpose of the religion is for assisting moral and internal purification by cultivating higher levels of God-consciousness, and with that earn Paradise.

If consolidation and creating a framework for political power wasn't the primary purpose, it was one hell of a bonus. File under
"unintended consequences"? I don't think that is remotely believable.





Oh and look what the stated goals are of ISIS? Another coincidence?

From at least since 2004, a significant goal of the group has been the foundation of an Islamic state.[133][134] Specifically, ISIL has sought to establish itself as a caliphate, an Islamic state led by a group of religious authorities under a supreme leader—caliph—who is believed to be the successor to Muhammad.[135] In June 2014, ISIL published a document in which it claimed to have traced the lineage of its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi back to Muhammad,[135] and upon proclaiming a new caliphate on 29 June, the group appointed al-Baghdadi as its caliph. As caliph, he demands the allegiance of all devout Muslims worldwide according to Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh).[136]


Areas controlled (as of 31 December 2014)
Remaining territory in countries with ISIL presence
When the caliphate was announced, ISIL stated: "The legality of all emirates, groups, states and organizations becomes null by the expansion of the khilafah's [caliphate's] authority and arrival of its troops to their areas".[135] This was a rejection of the political divisions in the Middle East that were established by Western powers during World War I in the Sykes–Picot Agreement.[137][138][139]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Sta...vant#Goals

[Rayaan]

Rayaan, I love ya, man. But sometimes you are so engagingly naive. Religion is, and always has been, about power. In the real world...not in some crazy "afterlife."

Then explain why the Quran - the very basis of Islam - consistently denounces man's desire and competition for wealth and power in the present life, instead of approving it.

"Know that the life of this world is but amusement and diversion and adornment and boasting to one another and competition in increase of wealth and children - like the example of a rain whose (resulting) plant growth pleases the tillers; then it dries and you see it turned yellow; then it becomes crushed bits of straw. And in the Hereafter is a severe punishment, and (also) forgiveness from Allah and approval. And what is the worldly life except the enjoyment of delusion." (Surah 57:20)

"O you who believe! Let not your wealth and your children divert you from remembrance of Allah. And whoever does that - then those are the losers." (Surah 63:09)

Does any of that match with the view that religion is always about power, in this world?

If consolidation and creating a framework for political power wasn't the primary purpose, it was one hell of a bonus. File under
"unintended consequences"? I don't think that is remotely believable.

Those maps are just showing the spreading of Islam. That still doesn't prove that political control on the earth is the primary purpose, nor something that is required of Muslims, although yes it can be a huge bonus for them.

The Quran itself does not advocate such a politically-oriented mindset, as I've just shown above.

[The Grand Nudger]

Then explain why the Quran - the very basis of Islam - consistently denounces man's desire and competition for wealth and power in the present life, instead of approving it.

If you're in power, the one thing you don't want is other people wanting it. After all, that's what happened to the guy you "deposed", isn't it? Who was it that put together your book again? Some pauper, living in rags?

"Hey little people, I know you think it's shitty down there, but...really....you want to be down there, it's good to be down there. Hell, god doesn't want you lusting after power or money or wealth. Down this road lay only ruin, and just to help you get into heaven, Imma go ahead and keep all that over here, to help you resist that temptation. Because I'm a really pious guy like that"

-it's an exceedingly old con, it's longevity can only be explained by it's efficacy.

[Minimalist]

Because the people who are being sold bullshit are not the ones benefiting from it.

Just like the xtians, muslims are told, STFU, do what we say and you'll get your reward in the next life. Meanwhile, they clean up down here.

Remember Napoleon's words.

“I am surrounded by priests who repeat incessantly that their kingdom is not of this world, and yet they lay hands on everything they can get.”

― Napoléon Bonaparte

It's all the same shit, my friend.