Islamic Scholar Doubts Mohammad Existed

[Minimalist]

Interesting little excerpt. The full essay is available for anyone who speaks German fluently.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122633888141714211.html

My position with regard to the historical existence of Muhammad is that I believe neither his existence nor his non-existence can be proven. I, however, lean towards the non-existence but I don't think it can be proven. It is my impression that, unless there are some sensational archeological discoveries -- an Islamic "Qumran" or "Nag Hammadi" -- the question of Muhammad's existence will probably never be finally clarified.

I wonder if the followers of the religion of peace have killed him yet?

[annatar]

If he never exiested, he never raped 9 years old child(Aisha).. I've heard disgusting stories about their first night... So in a way its a progress for muho..

[Minimalist]

Yes, Anna, that would be correct. Except, just like the stories of "Joshua's" conquering armies slaughtering men, women and children, what does it say about the people who invented those fictitious stories in the first place.

To me it says they were a frightened bunch of miserable twits.

In Aisha's case, well.... we know that some muslim men seem to enjoy raping 9 year olds and their imams tell that it's okay with allah.

Funny how that shit always works out that way, huh?

[Rayaan]

I've read this article before but I don't know what's going on with him as of late.

However, the scholar is wrong for several reasons:

Many of the primary sources used in Islam are classified as mutawattir - meaning that the number of people to have reported an incident or a text - is so great such that a conspiracy to forge the information is almost impossible. For example, consider a person that has never been to China, yet he believes that China exists, because the number of people that have actually been there and spoken about it is too great for it to be a lie. Similarly, many of the sources of Islam (including the Quran), are classified as mutawattir for this very reason. There are so many people who met and saw the Prophet (pbuh) that it's impossible that he never existed.

Furthermore, Islam derives its laws from these primary sources, and even to this day if a ruling or position is put forward then it must be backed up with scholarly evidence, which includes stating the reliability of the sources used. Islam does not rely on a clergy that makes arbitrary decisions regarding sacred laws. If a person believes that the Prophet (pbuh) never really existed, then the inference is that the sources which the law is derived from is simply man made, and thereby taking their belief out of the realm of divinely revealed religion and into the sphere of mere opinions and conjectures.

What I find the most surprising thing about this scholar, in a strange way, is that he still says that he's a "Muslim" while denying the existence of the Prophet (pbuh).

To deny the Prophet (pbuh) is to deny everything about Islam, because by doing so, he has rejected the first pillar of Islam, which is to believe that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad (pbuh) is the messenger of Allah. Therefore, it is a clear contradiction if he believes that Muhammad didn't exist and yet make the claim that he is still a Muslim (or a believer of Islam).

[Shell B]

There are pictures of China. Products that come from China. Countries have warred with China. There is significantly more proof that a whole fucking country exists than one person. The same would be true for any country and any person. It's just a bad analogy.

Loads of people have said that fairies exist. I have yet to see one. That is not to say that I don't think your prophet was a real person. I just tend to lean toward, "If he was a real person, he was insane."

[Minimalist]

Many of the primary sources used in Islam are classified as mutawattir - meaning that the number of people to have reported an incident or a text - is so great such that a conspiracy to forge the information is almost impossible.

There's a line in the xtian bible about 500 witnesses for jesus' resurrection, Rayaan. They are just as full of shit as your 'mutawattir' .

Islam is attempting to sanctify the logical fallacy of the Appeal to Popularity.

Appeals to popularity suggest that an idea must be true simply because it is widely held. This is a fallacy because popular opinion can be, and quite often is, mistaken. Hindsight makes this clear: there were times when the majority of the population believed that the Earth is the still centre of the universe, and that diseases are caused by evil spirits; neither of these ideas was true, despite its popularity.

[annatar]

I've read this article before but I don't know what's going on with him as of late.

However, the scholar is wrong for several reasons:

Many of the primary sources used in Islam are classified as mutawattir - meaning that the number of people to have reported an incident or a text - is so great such that a conspiracy to forge the information is almost impossible. For example, consider a person that has never been to China, yet he believes that China exists, because the number of people that have actually been there and spoken about it is too great for it to be a lie. Similarly, many of the sources of Islam (including the Quran), are classified as mutawattir for this very reason. There are so many people who met and saw the Prophet (pbuh) that it's impossible that he never existed.

Furthermore, Islam derives its laws from these primary sources, and even to this day if a ruling or position is put forward then it must be backed up with scholarly evidence, which includes stating the reliability of the sources used. Islam does not rely on a clergy that makes arbitrary decisions regarding sacred laws. If a person believes that the Prophet (pbuh) never really existed, then the inference is that the sources which the law is derived from is simply man made, and thereby taking their belief out of the realm of divinely revealed religion and into the sphere of mere opinions and conjectures.

What I find the most surprising thing about this scholar, in a strange way, is that he still says that he's a "Muslim" while denying the existence of the Prophet (pbuh).

To deny the Prophet (pbuh) is to deny everything about Islam, because by doing so, he has rejected the first pillar of Islam, which is to believe that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad (pbuh) is the messenger of Allah. Therefore, it is a clear contradiction if he believes that Muhammad didn't exist and yet make the claim that he is still a Muslim (or a believer of Islam).

So you're saying Muhammed existed, I have no reason to believe otherwise. But, since he was existed, how do you feel about him for fucking a 9 yars old girl? I just wanted to know whether you're cool with it or not..

[Anomalocaris]

You believing in china because you are convinced that if you were to go to china, there will be china. If you go to china, and there is no china, then you stop believing china. If you are told that china exists, but you can't ever go there no matter how hard you try, and you can't even look at it from across the border, you would be right to be somewhat suspicious of its existence.

Now if someone tells me that I must reorder my entire life because of China, and no matter how hard I try, I can never in this life visit china, nor look at it from across the border, nor talk to anyone who can give me convincing evidence of being from china, and only if I reordered my life to the exact specification of china would china reward me in a way which I can not witness in this life to verify, then I think my suspicion of the motive of the person selling me the story would be greater then even my suspicions about the existence of China.

[Rayaan]

There is significantly more proof that a whole fucking country exists than one person. The same would be true for any country and any person. It's just a bad analogy.

Yeah, that's a bad analogy that I gave. But I'm glad that you're smart enough to not deny his existence.

There's a line in the xtian bible about 500 witnesses for jesus' resurrection, Rayaan. They are just as full of shit as your 'mutawattir' .

Then isn't that another reason to believe that Jesus existed as well?

Islam is attempting to sanctify the logical fallacy of the Appeal to Popularity.

That's not a fallacy if the number of people who reported the same thing has an effect of strengthening the authenticity of the reports. The believability of a reference is dependent upon the number of people who reported the same thing, while at the same time, having strong evidence that the people who reported them are also real and not made up characters. This means that the authenticity or the truthfulness of a reference is determined by taking the references and then seeing if all of them can be traced back to a single, common source.

But, since he was existed, how do you feel about him for fucking a 9 yars old girl? I just wanted to know whether you're cool with it or not..

I believe that's a lie that is being spread on the internet by Islam haters.
If you truly believe that, then please quote the exact hadith/report/narration which says that the prophet raped a 9-year-old girl. Thanks.

[Anomalocaris]

That's not a fallacy if the number of people who reported the same thing has an effect of strengthening the authenticity of the reports. The believability of a reference is dependent upon the number of people who reported the same thing, while at the same time, having strong evidence that the people who reported them are also real and not made up characters. This means that the authenticity or the truthfulness of a reference is determined by taking the references and then seeing if all of them can be traced back to a single, common source.

Point me to direct evidence that such number of witnesses in fact existed and the number was not itself made up as fradulent "evidence".

As to the reliability of witnesses, I can point you to scores of places where the different books of the bible made up shit to strengthen its own particular narrative motif, and millions of witnesses of the bible, if you will, have read the bible through and through and failed to detect factual incompatibility this created between different parts of the bible.