It wasn't Mohammed who founded Islam.

[Jackie]

Why was jesus labeled the offspring of "Mary?"

What about Jupiter's "children?"

Are you saying the Battle of Karbala was a myth?

The only thing religion proves as far as history is concerned is that there was a history of making those claims. Peppering a holy book, any holy book of any religion with a real person here or a real city their still would not make magic men or prophets real.

No one took down a wall with trumpets. No one cured blindness with spit or mud. No one rose the dead from the dead. No different than saying George Washington was real, but the cherry tree was a myth.

You can rent a Superman movie and see him flying around real cities, but that does not make Superman real.

[Lucanus]

[watchamadoodle]

I watched the video last night. The documentary claimed that when Jerusalem was conquered by the Arabs, there was no mention of Islam by the Jewish and Christians who recorded their impressions of the experience. They recorded that the Arabs prayed on the temple mount and had a guide, but their religion was a mystery.

I guess that isn't conclusive either way, but it was interesting to me.

The best 71 minutes you can spend on the subject.

[Minimalist]

Or not. That is the issue at hand.

Yes it is, but I put my money on him simply hating the Jews and Christians, they still do, their just quit about it.

Misleading. In general jews and muslims got along quite well in the islamic empire. The jews paid their tax - it was, on a pro rata basis, a lot less than when xtians periodically slaughtered them and stole everything. There was a large and flourishing jewish community in Baghdad right up until 1947 when the partition of Palestine provoked anti-jewish riots. This enmity is a modern invention. And why not? As has been pointed out in many ways the nuttier muslims and jews are pretty much the same shit.

[JesusHChrist]

Are you saying the Battle of Karbala was a myth?

I'm finding scant evidence supporting the details around this battle. The earliest documentation was written by a person who died almost 100 years after the event.

Battle of Karbala = 680AD.
Abu Miknahf = died 774AD, so probably born around 700AD at best. If he started his writing career at 20, that would put the collecting of eye witness testimony at around 720AD. It's certainly possible eye witnesses existed as late as 720AD, but they would be getting on in age.

But, the problems mount when you find out "Abi Mikhnaf's original seems to have been lost and that which has reached today has been transmitted through his student Hisham Ibn Al-Kalbi (died in 204 AH)" - another 50 years later.

The battle could have happened. Maybe Mo's progeny were involved; maybe they didn't exist. Stories get told and embellished by old men sitting around a fire.

The point being, no one wrote anything down until 40+ years after the event, at best. Hardly compelling and ripe for myth-making.

[Rayaan]

[Jackie]

[pocaracas]

And it ignores the earliest references to Muhammad which are recorded even in non-Muslim sources, as I mentioned here with a link.

You know those references, only mention some sort of army general, right?
Here are snippets of the quotes therein:

and in January, they took the word for their lives (did) [the sons of] Emesa [i.e., Ḥimṣ)], and many villages were ruined with killing by [the Arabs of] Muḥammad and a great number of people were killed and captives [were taken] from Galilee as far as Bēth

there was a battle between the Romans and the Arabs of Muḥammad [Syr. tayyāyē d-Mḥmt] in Palestine twelve miles east of Gaza. The Romans fled, leaving behind the patrician YRDN

Then God raised up against them the sons of Ishmael, [numerous] as the sand on the sea shore, whose leader (mdabbrānā) was Muḥammad (mḥmd). Neither walls nor gates, armour or shield, withstood them, and they gained control over the entire land of the Persians.

But not all is bad, there's something slightly reminiscent of a christian gospel. Written by a bishop who maintains that the account of Arab conquests derives from the fugitives who had been eyewitnesses thereof:

At that time a certain man from along those same sons of Ismael, whose name was Mahmet [i.e., Muḥammad], a merchant, as if by God's command appeared to them as a preacher [and] the path of truth. He taught them to recognize the God of Abraham, especially because he was learnt and informed in the history of Moses. Now because the command was from on high, at a single order they all came together in unity of religion. Abandoning their vain cults, they turned to the living God who had appeared to their father Abraham. So, Mahmet legislated for them:[...]

And then you get to Abd al-Malik, the official founder of Islam, right?


So, apart from Sebeos, who's giving us a second hand account (at best) of a leader implementing rules and regulations, you have a military leader.

So... yeah... it is possible there was a military leader behind, at least, some of the arab conquests.... and it is possible such a person's name was Muhamad, or Mehmet, or something similar...
It is also likely that such conquests were done, not by a single army, but by several... well, several battalions, as we'd call them nowadays, huh?
This would give us several military leaders... if you get my drift?...

[Rayaan]

And then you get to Abd al-Malik, the official founder of Islam, right?

So all those references of an army general named Muhammad and start from the year 634 CE is actually Abd al-Malik, even though he was born in 646 CE?

Why don't you please enlighten me on this guy a little more, if you know anything else.

So, apart from Sebeos, who's giving us a second hand account (at best) of a leader implementing rules and regulations, you have a military leader.

So... yeah... it is possible there was a military leader behind, at least, some of the arab conquests.... and it is possible such a person's name was Muhamad, or Mehmet, or something similar...
It is also likely that such conquests were done, not by a single army, but by several... well, several battalions, as we'd call them nowadays, huh?
This would give us several military leaders... if you get my drift?...

And exactly how did you go from "a military leader" to "several military leaders"? And where is the historical evidence for those several military leaders who lived around 634 CE, like the ones we have for Muhammad?

"It is just very likely" is not a decisive answer, by the way.

[Minimalist]