It wasn't Mohammed who founded Islam.

[Rayaan]

See what you can do with an article which does not mention Spencer...since you seem to have decided that he is your personal enemy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/02/arts/s...koran.html

I've looked into those scholars as well, and not surprisingly their theories of the Quran have also been debunked in accordance with historical evidence, just like Spencer's. And even those scholars which the article mentions do not hold the same opinion as Spencer about Muhammad's non-existence. Their criticisms deal particularly with the origins of the Quran, not about the historical accuracy of Muhammad's existence, since it was pretty clear to them that he did exist. So their points of contention are different from that of Spencer's.

Take all the time you need for getting back to me in the other thread ... or, just don't if you can't.

BTW, Rayaan, can you show me the part of the koran which allows you to critically examine your faith?

Sure, why not?

"This is a blessed Book which We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], so that they might ponder over its verses and that those of understanding would be reminded." (Surah 38:29)

So we've been taught to constantly reflect and ponder on the Quran, which is known as "tadabbur" in Arabic, not to just read it like a robot.

Tadabbur is a glossary term that often appears in the study of Qur`anic sciences (it appears in the Qur`an as well!). Tadabbur is a form of exegesis and in simpler terms it translates to ‘reflect’. Thus the name 'Qur'anic Reflections'.

http://quranicreflections.tumblr.com/pos...reflection

[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...

[Brian37]

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.

[Brian37]

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]

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.

Well I'm sure you know that critical examination is not just about asking questions, but more than that, it requires thoughtful deliberation.

There is also an important difference between asking questions and really asking. Many times we ask questions in order to simply instill doubts in our minds, or to consolidate a certain preconceived idea that we have in mind, which is obviously not the way to do critical examination. For example, earlier when you asked me "Can you show me the part of the koran which allows you to critically examine your faith?" and in the other thread "Where is the evidence that it happened the way the koran claims?," both of these questions seem to carry a preformed answer that you wanted to plant into my head. You were just asking those questions in order to drive home a point, not to make me critically examine my faith. But thankfully I understand well enough to be able to discern such suggestive questions cleverly disguised as a request for a non-biased "critical" examination.

Islam doesn't actually prohibit asking questions. What it discourages is asking unnecessary and suggestive questions, or questions about something which has been made clear to us. The Quran is one of those things because it states about itself that it is a book about which there is no doubt: "This is the Book in which there is no doubt, a guidance for the righteous" (Surah 2:02). This means that the divine origin of this book as well as the instructions contained therein should not be questioned or doubted. We can ponder or think about it (silently), but asking questions should be avoided because it is likely to imply that we already have an inkling to find some kind of a justification to simply reject or deny what we have been told to believe. Questions are oftentimes used as a reinforcement of certain presumptions (of what the answer is) and less so as a serious pursuit of the truth.

Research in psychology has proven that there is a lot of suggestibility in the way we frame a question without even being aware of it. We tend to word questions in a way relative to our own beliefs and experiences, as opposed to being objective, which automatically creates a greater likelihood that there will be errors in our answers due to the biased framing of the questions themselves. This has also been demonstrated by how poll questions are phrased and the kinds of responses they elicit.

Thinking/contemplation/pondering, on the other hand, is something more neutral because your thoughts flow more freely and your mind is less restrained, whereas questioning usually limits and influences the answers to be what you expected them to be.

"Questions do more than ask: they solicit and convey information, and focus and suggest answers. By influencing answers, questions alter what is understood by others." - Dr. Kathy Kellermann

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

But in total there was like 17 references, counting the ones which mention Muhammad as the Messenger of God (and not just a leader), which you intentionally ignored.

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!!

The answer is that most people during that time were illiterate, along with Muhammad who belonged to an illiterate Bedouin tribe, the Quraish. Writing was very uncommon in that time and place. And even if there were some contemporary writings of Muhammad (or from Muhammad), it's very unlikely that those writings would still be intact, especially if they were written on paper or on scrolls.

And still, Muslim historians have transmitted that Muhammad sent letters to various kings and governors (to invite them to Islam) which were all written by his scribes.

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

That's funny. You gave an answer with no explanation at all. Well then, using your own question I'm going to ask you now:

How the hell did this one man establish himself as the leader of all those tribes?

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

Conversion to Islam started to occur very soon after Muhammad began to preach at around the age of 40, when he first received revelation. Then the Muslim ummah (community) started to grow during the rest of his life and in the years following his death. All of this is well-documented in history. We have exact dates and accurate knowledge of the events. And once again they all support that the rise of Islam goes back to only one man: Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

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

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

[pocaracas]

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

But in total there was like 17 references, counting the ones which mention Muhammad as the Messenger of God (and not just a leader), which you intentionally ignored.

Of course I ignored them.. post Abd al-Malik and stuff...
If this guy is the one who instated the religion, then it stands to reason that anything that comes after is somewhat biased.

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!!

The answer is that most people during that time were illiterate, along with Muhammad who belonged to an illiterate Bedouin tribe, the Quraish. Writing was very uncommon in that time and place. And even if there were some contemporary writings of Muhammad (or from Muhammad), it's very unlikely that those writings would still be intact, especially if they were written on paper or on scrolls.

That answer doesn't fly.
The same could be said of christians in 1st century Israel... and yet, we have scrolls and stone inscriptions.
Actually, it seems there were people writing in the Arabian peninsula well before Mohammad came along. So it stands to reason that some of the people vanquished by Mohammad's tribe would mention it, somehow... and yet, silence.
I know it's "absence of evidence".... not "evidence of absence", but it is a hint of absence.

And still, Muslim historians have transmitted that Muhammad sent letters to various kings and governors (to invite them to Islam) which were all written by his scribes.

From the very first paragraph about those letters:

According to al-Tabari in his History of the Prophets and Kings, Muhammad decided after the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah to send letters to many rulers of the world, inviting them to Islam. [1][2][3] Most critical scholars doubt this tradition, however.

erm... I'm no scholar, so I can't criticize any of it... but they do.
It's like that was a later addition to the tradition, in order to consolidate the impression that Mo did everything right, huh?

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

That's funny. You gave an answer with no explanation at all. Well then, using your own question I'm going to ask you now:

How the hell did this one man establish himself as the leader of all those tribes?

He succeeded Marwan I (684–685) who "was the fourth Umayyad Caliph" and whose "short reign was marked by a civil war among the Syrian Arabs as well as a war against Abdullah ibn Zubayr who continued to rule over the Hejaz, Iraq, Egypt and parts of Syria. Marwan was able to prevail in Syria at the Battle of Marj Rahit, the result of which was a new Marwanid line of Umayyad caliphs. He was also able to recapture Egypt and Syria from Abdullah, but was not able to completely defeat him."

This Marwan I followed Muawiya II who inherited an empire "in a state of disarray with Abdullah bin Zubayr claiming to be the true caliph and holding the Hejaz as well as other areas." (683–684)
"Traditionally, Mu'awiya is shown to have had no interest in politics, perhaps with justification. He is said to have claimed that only by mistake of the hereditary principle was he Caliph and under no other means would he have ever been chosen. Yet it is said that his courtiers persuaded him to remain Caliph as he was kind and would do some virtuous deeds. Some say they did this to prolong their own power or because it was ungrateful for Mu'awiya to give back the power given to him by God.

Once a truce had been made in 683, Mu'awiya turned to domestic affairs. He did not involve himself for many months with Zubayr, even when fighting continued and when the truce had obviously been broken in all but name. Mu'awiyya passed three laws which he said were necessary. Firstly, he said that the rights of women should be protected, secondly that no man should be put to death because of a crime, and thirdly that the charity tax should be made compulsory. These laws were removed once he had died."

There was a nice chap...

Before him, we had Yazid I, " the second Caliph of the Umayyad Caliphate (and the first one through inheritance). Yazid was the Caliph as appointed by his father Muawiyah I and ruled for three years from 680 CE until his death in 683 CE."

"Upon succession, Yazid asked Governors of all provinces to take an oath of allegiance to him. The necessary oath was secured from all parts of the country. Husayn ibn Ali (grandson of Muhammad) and Abdullah ibn Zubayr (grandson of Abu Bakr) refused to declare allegiance. Yazid sent Marwan, a soldier in his army, to assist in this task.[6][7] An early historical account of the issue of obtaining bai'ah (pledge of allegiance) by Yazid I was chronicled by 9th Century CE historian Al-Tabari who recorded that Yazid's only concern, when he assumed power, was to receive the oath of allegiance from the individuals who had refused to agree with Muawiyah's demand for this oath of allegiance for his son Yazid."

Why would those grandsons refuse that?

And then we come to the very fist caliph of the Umayyad Dynasty: Muawiyah I, 661–680.
"Muawiyah was politically adept in dealing with the Eastern Roman Empire and was therefore made into a secretary by Muhammad.[4] During the first and second caliphates of Abu Bakr and Umar (Umar ibn al-Khattab), he fought with the Muslims against the Byzantines in Syria."
How curious that they should write "fought with the muslims".

But also, "Muawiyah worked as a scribe for Muhammad." what?!?!
Where are these writings?!?!?

Anyway... carrying on...
Before that guy came Ali ibn Abi Talib, 1st Shia Imam, 4th Caliph of Rashidun Caliphate, ruling over the Islamic Caliphate from 656 to 661.

Before that, you had Uthman(644–656). "was a companion of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, and the third of the Sunni Rashidun or "Rightly Guided Caliphs". Born into a prominent Meccan clan of the Quraysh tribe" and "He was also the prophet's son-in-law twice, being married to two of the prophet’s daughters Ruqayyah and Umm Kulthum. Under the leadership of Uthman, the empire expanded into Fars in 650 (present-day Iran), some areas of Khorasan (present-day Afghanistan) in 651 and the conquest of Armenia was begun in the 640s.[3]"


Bah... I've had it.... All I see are rulers ascending and dying quickly. Their main purpose is war and the first few claim to have some kinship with the conveniently already dead Mohammad.
Perhaps the claim isn't that bogus, as they're from the same tribe... and a tribe is practically just an extended family.

But there's one hitch.... all these wiki pages and their sources... they're biased by the muslim religion...
Many of these caliphs stem from the same tribe you claim were illiterate, so no actual records should exist on them... and yet, the wiki pages seem pretty full. Where did the information come from?
Oral tradition would have carried with it the muslim seal of approval, or bias... a seal which we'd like to remove from the record.
And oral tradition would scarcely carry details of Muawiya II 1 year reign... and yet, there they are... suspicious...
Now the problem becomes not "absence of evidence", but "abundance" where absence is expected.
Reminiscent of J.C.'s lineage in the bible, with the requirement that it goes straight back to Adam&Eve, passing Abraham and Noah. Too much detail where little or none is expected... highly suspicious.

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

Conversion to Islam started to occur very soon after Muhammad began to preach at around the age of 40, when he first received revelation. Then the Muslim ummah (community) started to grow during the rest of his life and in the years following his death. All of this is well-documented in history. We have exact dates and accurate knowledge of the events. And once again they all support that the rise of Islam goes back to only one man: Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

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

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

Nice links you gave me, thanks!
I confess my ignorance of most muslim-related stuff, so I welcome any opportunity to learn a bit more.

I found something curious on that first link, though:

Only in subsequent centuries, with the development of the religious doctrine of Islam and with that the understanding of the Muslim ummah, did mass conversion take place. The new understanding by the religious and political leadership in many cases led to a weakening or breakdown of the social and religious structures of parallel religious communities such as Christians and Jews.[9]

The caliphs of the Umayyad dynasty established the first schools inside the empire, called madrasas, which taught the Arabic language and Islamic studies. They furthermore began the ambitious project of building mosques across the empire, many of which remain today as the most magnificent mosques in the Islamic world

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.

The whole thing is suspicious and reeks of power-play at work.
Sorry, your religion sounds like a rehash of previous religions, not just in the way the main figure is absent from contemporary records, but also in the way that figure was used as a means to control the populace.... (or maybe the main idea was just control of the army and that spilled over?)

[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 ...