It wasn't Mohammed who founded Islam.

[Cato]

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.

Al-Waleed's Quran must be a redacted version.

[JesusHChrist]

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.

Al-Waleed's Quran must be a redacted version.

And "Mohamed's" as well.

[Minimalist]

http://isaalmasih.net/archaeology-isa/qu...ology.html

Does archaeology support the Qur'an?

Muslims are adamant in asserting that the Quran is the final true word of God. However the historical reliability of Islam has been challenged by contemporary scholarship. Manuscript, documentary and archaeological evidence all fail to confirm many of the claims of Islam. Let's explore the mounting case against Islam from external documentary sources and modern archaeology.

[Brian37]

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.

The influences of the Hebrews was polytheism. Christianity and Islam started in the same area. But none of those religions were magically handed down by a god to a man/god or a "prophet". They all started as a result of mundane competition and marketing.

I think much of Islam started as a splinter sect of Egyptian Christianity, if I remember correctly.

It isn't that the writers of any of these books were deliberately lying. They were simply ignorant and confused their fortune in getting people to follow as being of divinity. It is a human mental trap, the same as a lucky bat or lucky socks. You gap fill to make an explanation as to why things happen. If you convince others then what you wrote was right in your mind. Most certainly retrofiting and backwards logic.

[JesusHChrist]

Nope, no political intent there at all. Not from the get-go, through the era of expansion/conquest, and certainly not up until modern times.

Origins of Islam as a political movement are to be found in the life and times of Islam's prophet Muhammad and his successors. In 622 CE, in recognition of his claims to prophethood, Muhammad was invited to rule the city of Medina. At the time the local Arab tribes of Aus and Khazraj dominated the city, and were in constant conflict. Medinans saw in Muhammad an impartial outsider who could resolve the conflict. Muhammad and his followers thus moved to Medina, where Muhammad drafted the Medina Charter. This document made Muhammad the ruler, and recognized him as the Prophet of Allah. The laws Muhammad established during his rule, based on the revelations of the Quran and doing of Muhammad, are considered by Muslims to be Sharia or Islamic law, which Islamic movements seek to establish in the present day. Muhammad gained a widespread following and an army, and his rule expanded first to the city of Mecca and then spread through the Arabian peninsula through a combination of diplomacy and military conquest.

Today many Islamist or Islamic democratic parties exist in almost every democracy with a Muslim majority. Many militant Islamic groups are also working in different parts of world. The controversial term Islamic fundamentalism has also been coined by some non-Muslims to describe the political and religious philosophies of some militant Islamic groups. Both of these terms (Islamic democracy and Islamic fundamentalism) lump together a large variety of groups with varying histories, ideologies and contexts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_aspects_of_Islam

[Minimalist]

The best 71 minutes you can spend on the subject.

[Mystic]

What do you say about the offspring of Fatima? Why were they labeled offspring of Mohammad?

[JesusHChrist]

What do you say about the offspring of Fatima? Why were they labeled offspring of Mohammad?

I would say, where is it documented Fatima or any offspring existed and when was the documentation written? Or are these mere stories passed down as fact?

It's not that hard to create a whole chain of "personages", starting with real people and then as you go further back in time, the documentation gets a bit wispy. Case in point - the succession of Catholic Popes. If you go back far enough, there is essentially no evidence some of these people existed.

It's also easy to invent historical people from whole cloth. Case in point - William Tell. He was born, died, did some conquering, served in Swiss Parliament and so on. Problem is, he didn't actually exist.

[Minimalist]

Why were they labeled offspring of Mohammad?

Why was jesus labeled the offspring of "Mary?"

What about Jupiter's "children?"

Vulcan was the son of Jupiter and Juno, husband of Venus

Venus was the daughter of Jupiter and Dione, wife of Vulcan and the mother (by Mercury) of Cupid, god of love

Minerva was the daughter of Jupiter and Juno

Apollo was the son of Jupiter and Latona. His twin sister was Diana

Diana was the daughter of Jupiter and Latona

Mercury was the son of Jupiter and Maia who was the daughter of the Titan Atlas

Bacchus was the son of Jupiter and Semele

Mars was the son of Jupiter and Juno

Proserpina was the daughter of Ceres and Jupiter

Wait. I know. I bet you insist that THEY are just a myth!

[Brian37]

What do you say about the offspring of Fatima? Why were they labeled offspring of Mohammad?

I would say, where is it documented Fatima or any offspring existed and when was the documentation written? Or are these mere stories passed down as fact?

It's not that hard to create a whole chain of "personages", starting with real people and then as you go further back in time, the documentation gets a bit wispy. Case in point - the succession of Catholic Popes. If you go back far enough, there is essentially no evidence some of these people existed.

It's also easy to invent historical people from whole cloth. Case in point - William Tell. He was born, died, did some conquering, served in Swiss Parliament and so on. Problem is, he didn't actually exist.

I think history is extremely important to know. Where I have a problem is when apologists who are theologians, nothing more than salesmen try to twist history to prove the existence of invisible men and magic men.

When it comes to any religion occham's razor tells you the reality even without a record of overlap.

Which makes more sense?

A god handed down his message to mortals?

Or

Humans get their ideas from prior and or surrounding tribes?

It is painfully obvious that there is nothing original about any religion. Humans do not start them in a vacuum.