It wasn't Mohammed who founded Islam.

[pocaracas]

[Rayaan]

I thought I wouldn't argue but I couldn't resist.

Can we agree that these can, and most likely do become, skewed?

Some of them can be skewed, yes, but I believe that most of them are reliable, especially when the traditions or hadiths have many different narrators to corroborate and if they are mentioned in the Quran as well.

But I want to just point out some of your contradictions here because I'm really finding it hilarious.

Posthumous... lends credence to posterior insertion, instead of actual existence.... at least, existence as claimed.

But later in the post you said that Bayesian methods "work far better than you'd expect when actual information is terribly difficult to access."

So, your preposterous double standard lies in the fact that whenever you're trying to discredit Muhammad's actual existence, you point to the lack of contemporary writings about him (as if the posthumous writings are all unreliable). But when you're asked to provide evidence or some historical documents about Abd-Al-Malik being the founder of Islam, you conveniently start tossing in Bayesian arguments ("most likely" blah blah blah) because you admitted that none of this stuff is actually recorded in history - none whatsoever.

Here:

When you say "claim", it sounds like I affirmed it really happened that way... I remember taking a bit of care in there and using a "most likely", directly telling you that there's no hard evidence for it.... just conjecture and a guess.
Conjecture from human psychology, from human power hunger, from human leadership history (remember Napoleon's [or was it Marx?] opium of the masses).

And here:

Is any of that recorded? I doubt it. He'd be shooting himself in the foot, if he'd recorded any of the techniques used to subdue the people and impose a new belief system onto them.
In light of this, I can only say that I have no evidence whatsoever that this happened. I shouldn't expect any... and none surfaces.... which makes sense.

Even though:

He had to convince a lot of people that what they believed, prior to his establishment, was wrong and this new prophet was the one true prophet.

So, per your Bayesian assumption, Abd-Al-Malik had to convince a lot of people throughout the empire that he was the one true prophet (meaning he received revelations from God) and yet none of this is recorded in history? Sounds highly, highly non-Bayesian to me.

Also, earlier, you wrote about Muhammad (with an emphasis added):

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!!

So using the same argument, if Abd-Al-Malik as a leader had to the same thing in order to call people to this new religion, isn't it more likely that at least some of those events would have been recorded? Yes, and yet there is none.

Oh, but look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...l_scholars:

They've been all debunked as well.

"Reviewing these recent studies on the Qur'an mainly published during the last decade, it is clear that, despite the clamor in the press, no major breakthrough in constructing the Qur'an has been achieved. The ambitious projects of Lüling and Luxenberg lack decisive evidence and can reach no further than the realm of possibility and plausibility." (Gerhard Bowering, The Quran in its Historical Context, p. 81))

"To this day no-one has put forward a defensible explanation of how an unlettered caravan merchant of the early seventh century might have been able, by his own devices, to produce a text of such inimitable beauty, of such capacity to stir emotion, and which contained knowledge and wisdom which stood so far above the ideas current among mankind at that time. The studies carried out in the West which try to determine the 'sources used by Muhammad', or to bring to light the psychological phenomenon which enabled him to draw the inspiration from his 'subconscious', have demonstrated only one thing: the anti-Muslim prejudice of their authors." (Roger DuPasquier, Unveiling Islam, p. 53)


I've already discussed the history of the Quranic transmission and compilation in greater detail in the following posts:

https://atheistforums.org/thread-21997-p...#pid543636

https://atheistforums.org/thread-5678-po...#pid111522

[pocaracas]

[robvalue]

Oral tradition is a crock of shit when it comes to accuracy. Source: almost every message ever relayed orally from one person to another.

[JesusHChrist]

Oral tradition is a crock of shit when it comes to accuracy. Source: almost every message ever relayed orally from one person to another.

Yes, the Catholics pull the same crap with their "according to tradition" nonsense. As if we are supposed to accept these traditions without scrutiny...
The problem for Mohamed's historicity is the same as it is for Jesus - nothing contemporary.

In Pastafarianism, according to tradition, He created the world, a midget and pirates with a touch of His Noodly appendage. According to our traditions, there will be a beer volcano and a stripper factory in Heaven.

[Rayaan]

Do go on...
I wonder why you didn't answer my very direct question...

Well, I didn't quote that part of the post but the answer to that is already contained in my response to your first question, which is the part in bold:

Some of them can be skewed, yes, but I believe that most of them are reliable, especially when the traditions or hadiths have many different narrators to corroborate and if they are mentioned in the Quran as well.

Does that answer your question or no?

Had you been paying attention, you'd seen that I've gone from what the videos that Min posted, suggesting that no Mohammad ever existed, to a middle position where this Mo, or whatever his name was, did exist, but solely as a tribal leader, with all the perks that come along with the job:
- Military leader
- Ruler

So then you believe that the oral traditions and posthumous writings are at least somewhat reliable since it is exactly those things which inform us about who Muhammad was, right?

huh?
Aren't you mixing two "he"s?
I don't recall saying that "Abd-Al-Malik had to convince a lot of people throughout the empire that he was the one true prophet"... I fail to even see how I could have hinted that.

Let's see if some adding a little color to the font helps everyone to see this. You wrote the following:

Yes, you're right... but it is likely that this guy, Abd-Al-Malik, in order to extend the reach of that limited religion, had to include extra bits of wonderment, and rules for the cases of failure to accept this new religion.
He had to convince a lot of people that what they believed, prior to his establishment, was wrong and this new prophet was the one true prophet.
He had to do this leg work. And he used very real and human tricks to accomplish it.
Is any of that recorded? I doubt it. He'd be shooting himself in the foot, if he'd recorded any of the techniques used to subdue the people and impose a new belief system onto them.
In light of this, I can only say that I have no evidence whatsoever that this happened. I shouldn't expect any... and none surfaces.... which makes sense.

So, two questions, just to clarify:
1. Who is the "he" right below the first sentence? Abd-Al-Malik or Muhammad?
2. Who is this "new prophet"? Abd-Al-Malik or Muhammad?

I seem to recall providing a rational and natural explanation for such absence...
Did you miss it?

That was a really poor explanation. You just mentioned a few people in history who had a lot of power hunger, but that has nothing to do with Abd-Al-Malik let alone the assumption that the he is the one who established Islam.

ERrr..... so the criticism is debunked just because there's no evidence of how things really happened?
Doesn't that sort of debunks any other account, including the traditional muslim one?

The traditional Muslims accounts have actual eyewitnesses behind them. So those accounts are generally reliable since I don't think that most of them would be lying about what they saw or heard. The skeptical scholars, on the other hand, who are desperately searching for rational theories of the origin of the Quran are simply using their own heads to figure things out, and their arguments put forth also do not conform with the earliest Muslim traditions about the Quran, so yes their arguments are pretty much debunked.

I don't have time to give a lecture on the science of hadith and all the many technical issues at the moment. Maybe I'll get into that later.

[pocaracas]

Do go on...
I wonder why you didn't answer my very direct question...

Well, I didn't quote that part of the post but the answer to that is already contained in my response to your first question, which is the part in bold:

Some of them can be skewed, yes, but I believe that most of them are reliable, especially when the traditions or hadiths have many different narrators to corroborate and if they are mentioned in the Quran as well.

Does that answer your question or no?

I was hoping for something a bit more concrete... like which are unreliable and what do they claim that makes them unreliable, to you.
Remember that I'm mostly ignorant of Islam, so that would be a great opportunity to instruct me further.

Had you been paying attention, you'd seen that I've gone from what the videos that Min posted, suggesting that no Mohammad ever existed, to a middle position where this Mo, or whatever his name was, did exist, but solely as a tribal leader, with all the perks that come along with the job:
- Military leader
- Ruler

So then you believe that the oral traditions and posthumous writings are at least somewhat reliable since it is exactly those things which inform us about who Muhammad was, right?

There is evidence of tribal societies in that area.
There is evidence that all the tribes became united under the rule of someone towards the end of the 1st millennium.
Something happened in there, more or less at that time. Call it what you will, I don't care much.
Starting with Abd-Al-Malik, there should be far more evidence of everything... isn't there?

huh?
Aren't you mixing two "he"s?
I don't recall saying that "Abd-Al-Malik had to convince a lot of people throughout the empire that he was the one true prophet"... I fail to even see how I could have hinted that.

Let's see if some adding a little color to the font helps everyone to see this. You wrote the following:

Yes, you're right... but it is likely that this guy, Abd-Al-Malik, in order to extend the reach of that limited religion, had to include extra bits of wonderment, and rules for the cases of failure to accept this new religion.
He had to convince a lot of people that what they believed, prior to his establishment, was wrong and this new prophet was the one true prophet.
He had to do this leg work. And he used very real and human tricks to accomplish it.
Is any of that recorded? I doubt it. He'd be shooting himself in the foot, if he'd recorded any of the techniques used to subdue the people and impose a new belief system onto them.
In light of this, I can only say that I have no evidence whatsoever that this happened. I shouldn't expect any... and none surfaces.... which makes sense.

So, two questions, just to clarify:
1. Who is the "he" right below the first sentence? Abd-Al-Malik or Muhammad?
2. Who is this "new prophet"? Abd-Al-Malik or Muhammad?

O.o....
How many prophets are you considering?
I always thought there was only one prophet, Mo. And that's the one I meant.
The first "he" is Abd-Al-Malik, the guy who spread the religion on the peninsula.

I seem to recall providing a rational and natural explanation for such absence...
Did you miss it?

That was a really poor explanation. You just mentioned a few people in history who had a lot of power hunger, but that has nothing to do with Abd-Al-Malik let alone the assumption that the he is the one who established Islam.

Like I also said, no hard evidence is available...
And that works both ways.

ERrr..... so the criticism is debunked just because there's no evidence of how things really happened?
Doesn't that sort of debunks any other account, including the traditional muslim one?

The traditional Muslims accounts have actual eyewitnesses behind them.

Oh, do they?
"actual eyewitnesses"... amazing!!
Actual eyewitnesses "recorded" through the amazingly accurate medium of oral storytelling!
Come on, Ray... I've told you how unreliable that is.

So those accounts are generally reliable since I don't think that most of them would be lying about what they saw or heard.

Whaaaatt?? Who saw or heard what?

The skeptical scholars, on the other hand, who are desperately searching for rational theories of the origin of the Quran are simply using their own heads to figure things out, and their arguments put forth also do not conform with the earliest Muslim traditions about the Quran, so yes their arguments are pretty much debunked.

These scholars seem to be ignoring those amazingly accurate and reliable eyewitness accounts... I wonder why?....

I don't have time to give a lecture on the science of hadith and all the many technical issues at the moment. Maybe I'll get into that later.

A lecture! I'm actually looking forward to it.

[Rayaan]

[pocaracas]

[Rayaan]