It wasn't Mohammed who founded Islam.

[Raven]

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

[Minimalist]

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.

[Raven]

[Minimalist]

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?

[JesusHChrist]

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.

[watchamadoodle]

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.

[Marsellus Wallace]

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.

[Minimalist]

[watchamadoodle]

@Minimalist, those are good points.

[Raven]

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.