It wasn't Mohammed who founded Islam.

[Rayaan]

[Minimalist]

Rayaan, you are not usually that dishonest. I'm not talking about "pondering" ( and coming up with an imam-approved bullshit answer) and you know it. I'm talking about questioning the basic tenets as the jews and xtians have seen done with their bullshit. They don't like it but they have lost the power to kill people who question. Islam will grow up when it stops thinking that questions are the enemy.

The answer of course is that anyone who does not have an ayatollah's seal of approval stamped on his ass is not ever going to be given a fair hearing by you. I do love ya, man...better than most of the xtian shits who have the same kind of myopic view of their so-called holy books as you do...but you have no 'historical evidence.' What you have is the same crap written by believers that that they have.

[pocaracas]

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?

"All those references" were 3 and all posthumous... there's a nice hint for you.

If he was as leader as islam likes to claim, then some contemporary, as in while he was alive, writings about him would be likely...
I mean, we're talking about a guy who's the leader of all arabia... and expanding!... how could he accomplish that without writing orders and dealing with local tribal leaders and other stuff.... you know, like what the romans were doing 600 years earlier!!

How the hell did one man establish himself as the leader of all those tribes?
Easy answer: al-Malik.

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

I know nothing... your sources give me very little, too...

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.

How big is the muslim reach by 635CE?
How big was it when he allegedly started?
How long did it take?


Just for comparison, the Portuguese expansion in the 12th century went from what is now Coimbra to Lisbon in 20 years (1128 - 1147). 20 years for some 150 linear km. Compare that to the Arabian Peninsula!
Oh, and by 1140, the first king actually signs "Ego Alfonsus portugalensium Rex". Just 400 years after your Mo, in the ass end of the world called Portugal, you have a person with proper records of his claim as leader of the country. Contemporary records, written by the king himself.

Do tell me how fiction compares with reality...

[Jackie]

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.

Again I really hate when Muslims or Christians or Jews point to real people or real places mentioned in their holy books as if it proves that magic wands and crystal balls and bat phones allow them to talk to invisible beings they have no evidence for.

And the worst part is all three claim that their god provides peace to the world when the reality shows us it causes more problems than solves problems.

[robvalue]

I know, giving God credit for getting a few details right, when he is supposed to know everything, seems like a low bar.

[Mudhammam]

Again I really hate when Muslims or Christians or Jews point to real people or real places mentioned in their holy books as if it proves that magic wands and crystal balls and bat phones allow them to talk to invisible beings they have no evidence for.

And the worst part is all three claim that their god provides peace to the world when the reality shows us it causes more problems than solves problems.

It makes you wonder what kind of cognitive dissonance they experience when reading tales such as The Iliad and The Odyssey or the dialogues of Plato, or virtually any other work that includes historical anecdotes or core biographical truths while building upon decades if not centuries of ever-evolving and blending oral traditions.

[Jackie]

Again I really hate when Muslims or Christians or Jews point to real people or real places mentioned in their holy books as if it proves that magic wands and crystal balls and bat phones allow them to talk to invisible beings they have no evidence for.

And the worst part is all three claim that their god provides peace to the world when the reality shows us it causes more problems than solves problems.

It makes you wonder what kind of cognitive dissonance they experience when reading tales such as The Iliad and The Odyssey or the dialogues of Plato, or virtually any other work that includes historical anecdotes or core biographical truths while building upon decades if not centuries of ever-evolving and blending oral traditions.

The only "oral" traditions I like involve a consenting female.

[Rayaan]

[pocaracas]

[Rayaan]

But there's one hitch.... all these wiki pages and their sources... they're biased by the muslim religion...

Not just Wiki but also all of the 99% of historians and scholars and every professor around the world who disagree with you are also biased by the Muslim religion, right?

As I said way up there... Abd Al-Malik was the guy who made it the "state religion"... the guy who made arabic the "state language"... the guy, most likely, had his scribes write the qur'an as a political tool, following the best practices of the romans when they took on the bible.

And here you've posted a link to Wiki on Abd-Al-Malik to support your argument, even though you claimed that Wiki is biased. And the link still doesn't say anything about Abd-Al-Malik being the official founder of Islam. It says that he simply "consolidated Muslim rule and extended it, made Arabic the state language, and organized a regular postal service." That's not the same thing as starting the religion. He just consolidated and extend the Muslim rule, which indicates that there were already Muslims ruling the land before he started doing this.

Not to mention that the part in bold is pure conjecture, with no reference or source provided. It's very clear to me that you're just grasping at straws here.

There's no need for me to debate about this anymore even. Say whatever you want ...