View Full Version : Was Prophet Mohammed a real person?
Was he a real person? Yes or No? And why do you believe that he was real or not?
What is considered sufficient evidence historically to decide if someone is real or fabricated?
No.
Please explain why you think so. And what you consider as a historical person [with an example, if possible]. Citations of peer reviewed articles will be appreciated.
edit: this also includes swarm, who voted but did not comment.
Please explain why you think so.
Nah.
Nah.
Okay, so you don't believe Mohammed was real, but would not care to explain it. Thanks
SnakeLord
10-15-08, 10:06 AM
Don't care in the slightest. Not rude, just honest.
There is no evidence, for a Mohammed person, other than the Quran.
As there is no evidence for a Jesus person, other than the Bible.
Yes Mohammed was a real person...by the same reasoning I have for God and Allah and Jesus...
A belief in a person/being that exists cannot come from nowhere, something/someone had to exist to giver birth to this belief.
OilIsMastery
10-15-08, 02:51 PM
He was a real terrorist, slave trader, mass murderer, rapist, and pedophile, so yes.
SkinWalker
10-15-08, 06:42 PM
Wow. He could have been every bit as real as Moses then. Moses fit all these qualities as well.
Michael
10-15-08, 07:30 PM
IMO Mohammad is a religious character created for a political story. He's possibly based on a single person, certainly the possibliy exists, but is more likely mostly the fanciful imagining of ancient theologians, doing what they do best - make up religous stories.
One could ask: Was there a real Achilleus and what does it mean "real Achilleus"? Perhaps there was a great warrior that fought against the Trojans. More likely there were various brave warriors who fought various wars. Surely the mythical Achilleus in Homer's Iliad is 99% myth mixed with the deeds of what we expect a great warrior to have done. Homer was a story teller and he told a story to people who wanted to hear this sort of story. At that time Greeks were in LOVE with the Hero Archetype.
So, was there a real Mohammad? Again what does it mean "real Mohammad"? Perhaps there was an Arab person who fought against other Arab tribesmen. That is possible. Or, there may have been many such men. But surely the mythical Mohammad in the Qur'an is 99% myth mixed with the deeds of what Arabsexpected a great Prophet of God to be. That Mohammad, is political-religous myth. A story written by story tellers, vetted by politicians, and sold to an audience that expected such a person to exist.
spidergoat
10-15-08, 07:38 PM
I think it's reasonable to assume that he existed, but it's hard to find definitive proof.
Michael
10-15-08, 07:58 PM
Is it any more reasonable to think Jesus, Hercules, Moses or Adam existed?
PsychoticEpisode
10-15-08, 10:39 PM
Some would suggest that Allah is a real god. In the same vein, Mohammed could very well be real. Otherwise he probably is a definite historical figure but he is no prophet. He or anyone for that matter can call him one if inclined. No different than any other religious zealot who felt he knew what was best for everyone, his best that is.
Just consider Uncle Sam, if you want an example of a real person being turned into an incredible character. Uncle Sam did exist, but he was nothing more than a simple store owner that provided supplies to the Union troops. Jesus and Mohammed may very well have had real-life counterparts, but it's likely that the characters you read of in the Quaran and New Testament bear no resemblance to the real person.
Just consider Uncle Sam, if you want an example of a real person being turned into an incredible character. Uncle Sam did exist, but he was nothing more than a simple store owner that provided supplies to the Union troops. Jesus and Mohammed may very well have had real-life counterparts, but it's likely that the characters you read of in the Quaran and New Testament bear no resemblance to the real person.
What did you read about Mohammed in the Quran ?
Captain Kremmen
10-16-08, 04:02 AM
I'll toss a coin to decide.
Heads he was real, tails he wasn't.
Spinning..................................
still spinning.....................
Right. I'll have a look.
Tails. Mohammed was not real.
Interesting, a forum full of rationalists and not one has looked at the evidence.
Captain Kremmen
10-16-08, 07:35 AM
Interesting, a forum full of rationalists and not one has looked at the evidence.
You didn't say there was evidence.
That's completely different.
OK. Heads I believe the evidence and tails I don't.
Spinning......................
still spinning.........
Right. I'll have a look.
Tails. I don't believe the evidence.
What was it anyway.
Interesting, a forum full of rationalists and not one has looked at the evidence.
That's an interesting assumption.
I think you missed my point, however, as it doesn't really matter what is said about a person on that grand of a scale, be it Mohammed, Uncle Sam, or William Wallace; the legend rarely resembles the person.
Quick question, though...what evidence?
Michael
10-16-08, 06:27 PM
Yes, I'm also waiting for the contemporary "evidence".
DiamondHearts
10-16-08, 07:55 PM
And he was the greatest person that ever lived. Peace be to him.
Interesting, a forum full of rationalists and not one has looked at the evidence.
Honestly, no one gives a shit whether or not a character in a fairy tale novel was based on a real person or not.
If not Muhammad, then who, or what, transformed Arabia from a desert wasteland inhabited by nomads and warring tribes, into an illustrious, lasting empire within two decades? Consider the role of a historian, who is leafing through the pages of Arabian history: we have a vast desert land, which seemingly has no central authority; the inhabitants are either poor and nomadic, or belong to small clans and warring tribes. Suddenly, the timeline of history is shaken to its very foundations, as this arid landscape's inhabitants conquer the mighty Persia, and show more power, prosperity, and potential than their Byzantine competitors. In a matter of years, a spiritual army of unexperienced warriors claim the Middle East and North Africa to themselves; eventually, this Empire's faith is adopted willingly by millions worldwide, perpetually increasing in numbers. Curiously, the people embracing this new faith are not similar in terms of language, culture, or geography; rather, diverse individuals from all regions of the Earth suddenly claim to be adherents of Islam. The historian finally traces the spark to this awesome fire: a religion, or more properly, a way of life, introduced in the Hejaz region of Arabia. Thousands of hadiths are tirelessly scanned, all of which attribute this unparalleled surge's origins to a simple man named Muhammad. Muhammad's interactions with neighbouring Kings and rulers are also considered, as preserved records show distinct and diverse leaders to have recognized and appreciated Muhammad's unmatched character.
What is one to think? How did this fantastic, wholly complete religion come about, amidst a desert people who, by and large, had no grasp of reading or writing? How did Persia fall to powerless, poor, divided, warring Arabs in a matter of a few short years? How did this revitalizing faith spread across the globe so quickly, so fervently? How did this spiritual empire originate and develop with such ferocity, as never seen before? Which factor of this movement allowed it to withstand the great test of time? What man could warrant such inquisitive historical work, practiced by followers and enemies of the faith alike? The answer to all of these questions is, without doubt, Muhammad - the greatest man to have ever lived. If Muhammad never existed, then surely, there is an overwhelming black hole in the subject of "history".
Kadark
Dinosaur
10-16-08, 10:53 PM
There is surely more evidence to support the existence of Mohammed than there is to support the existence of Christ.
Outside of the New Testament of the Xian Bible and otther documetns produced by early Xians, there is only one brief reference to Christ in some Roman Historical document. There is reason to believe that Xians did some editing of that reference.
I am sure that there are references to Mohammed other than the Koran, but could be wrong because I never had much interest in reading about his life.
The real question concerns the validity of the data about these men in the Koran & the Bible.
Michael
10-17-08, 12:30 AM
Kadark,
That's interesting, I didn't know Mohammad led any armies to conqueror the Persian and Byzantium Empires. Did he now? Well, that's very interesting Kadark. Care to provide some ... Oooo I don't know EVIDENCE for this claim.
As for a religion spreading around the globe, come off it, Xianity is even larger than Islam and there is more evidence that its founder was completely made up. AND, you know what, THAT says something doesn't it? If we look at history for answers, and think about Hercules, Amaterasu, Jesus, etc.. we actually do find a pattern - THEY WERE ALL MAKE BELIEVE!
Now, about "Mohammad" and how he personally conquered Persia .... come again?
Michael
NOTE1: Macedonian goat farmers conquered Greece, Syria, Egypt, Persia and India.
NOTE2: Mongolian herdsmen conquered the Chinese, the Koreans, the Russians, the Europeans, the Persians, the Indians, the Arabs, etc... gee Kadark that must mean Ghangus Khan had Allah on his side!!! Haaaa!
So Michael believes that history has to be "reconstructed on the sole basis of documentary evidence", the rest of the naysayers have little to say why they believe Mohammed does not exist.
For those who believe he was real and are interested in the historicity of Mohammed, here is a link:
http://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-europe_islam/mohammed_3866.jsp
While I do not agree with everything Crone says, I am happy that western scholars have [!finally!] recognised their shortcomings in reading the Quran out of context
Mr. Hamtastic
10-17-08, 01:10 PM
I'm christian-I think Mohammed existed. Islam didn't fall from the sky. I don't think he was correct in his teachings, but that is purely subjective. Was he a final prophet? That's between him and God. For all you know, I might be a final prophet. I hope I'm not, as it would be awkward. I'd probably go around proclaiming the obvious all the time, or worse, what I hoped would happen in spite of what God wanted.
Islam didn't have to "fall from the sky" if Mohammed didn't exist. It could have been another person, or two people, or five. Mohammed, if he were a fictional character, could be a composition of a few or many historical character.
But I do laugh at how if something doesn't gel with SAM's belief, she writes it off as being totally without merit...but if it agrees with her, it's totally legitimate and worthy of our praise.
If not Muhammad, then who, or what, transformed Arabia from a desert wasteland inhabited by nomads and warring tribes, into an illustrious, lasting empire within two decades? ...the inhabitants are either poor and nomadic, or belong to small clans and warring tribes
Yet, the ME today is a desert wasteland inhabited by poor, nomadic, warring tribes. Hmmm...
...this arid landscape's inhabitants conquer the mighty Persia, and show more power, prosperity, and potential than their Byzantine competitors. In a matter of years, a spiritual army of unexperienced warriors claim the Middle East and North Africa to themselves, eventually, this Empire's faith is adopted willingly by millions worldwide, perpetually increasing in numbers.
So first you say Muslims conquered other peoples and in the same breath state that millions willingly adopted Islam. Contradict much?
Curiously, the people embracing this new faith are not similar in terms of language, culture, or geography; rather, diverse individuals from all regions of the Earth suddenly claim to be adherents of Islam.
No, suddenly forced to be adherents of Islam. Remember, they were conquered.
What is one to think? How did this fantastic, wholly complete religion come about, amidst a desert people who, by and large, had no grasp of reading or writing?
The sword, of course. Duh.
How did Persia fall to powerless, poor, divided, warring Arabs in a matter of a few short years? How did this revitalizing faith spread across the globe so quickly, so fervently? How did this spiritual empire originate and develop with such ferocity, as never seen before?
They were conquered.
Which factor of this movement allowed it to withstand the great test of time?
Simple, you try leaving Islam and you get killed.
If Muhammad never existed, then surely, there is an overwhelming black hole in the subject of "history".
Clearly, the black hole is in your Islamic propaganda.
Whether Mohammad was a real person or not is rather insignificant to his claim of communicating with an angel; Gabriel. It is this claim that is significant as it paves the way for his followers to believe in his claim to be a prophet.
Of course,no one would be taken seriously in this day and age for chatting with angels. They'd be rushed away promptly in a straight jacket. So, should it have been with Mohammad.
Of course,no one would be taken seriously in this day and age for chatting with angels. They'd be rushed away promptly in a straight jacket. So, should it have been with Mohammad.
I wonder if they would have had the same "He must be nutso" reaction back then as they do today?
I wonder if they would have had the same "He must be nutso" reaction back then as they do today?
Probably. But, he managed to put together an army of followers who would slit your throat if you did react that way. ;)
Did he? That must have been how a few thousand people managed to influence a sixth of the worlds population.
Did he? That must have been how a few thousand people managed to influence a sixth of the worlds population.
Sounds about right. I know you'll never look at it objectively, but you nailed it. Kill them if they don't agree.
Right. :rolleyes:
Which is why for 100 years, only Arabs were Muslims.
Right. :rolleyes:
Which is why for 100 years, only Arabs were Muslims.
That's because at that time everyone say Islam for what it was--a brutal, racist and sexist religion that had no place in the modern world. Then, all of a sudden, that changed. Islam didn't, but people's attitude's toward it changed.
And it's too bad, too, because it is the most poisonous, terrible religion this world has ever seen.
I suppose this is all from the same source where you got the info on Mohammed. Amazing, everyday here, I see that atheists are more irrational than theists.
Mr. Hamtastic
10-17-08, 07:03 PM
Wait, I thought they called christianity the most horrible. Lucky so and so's.
Nah we're not so lucky :(
GOD NAMES NEXT "CHOSEN PEOPLE"; IT'S JEWS AGAIN (http://www.satirewire.com/news/march02/chosen.shtml):
Did he? That must have been how a few thousand people managed to influence a sixth of the worlds population.
It was about ten thousand, and those numbers grew each time another city was conquered. You either fought with them, accepted their ideology or you died.
Again, if that fallacy is true, why were only Arabs Muslims until a mixed Arab-Persian took the Caliphate?
Michael
10-17-08, 08:54 PM
S.A.M.
Lets try something new in the religious forum, lets, you and I, agree on something!
:p
we'll agree to this: Mohammad was as real as Jesus.
How's that? Do we agree? I mean, you believe in Jesus and I don't. So we can agree with one another even though our positions are juxtapose.
Michael
Sure, I'll agree to that. :)
Michael
10-17-08, 09:37 PM
wow :D
Again, if that fallacy is true, why were only Arabs Muslims until a mixed Arab-Persian took the Caliphate?
Which Islamic conquest do you refer?
Which Islamic conquest do you refer?
You tell me. The Arabs went up to Spain and for the hundred years that they established themselves, they were the only Muslims. The most they did was to establish Arabic language schools. They were followed by the Berbers, followed by the Mongols who were shamanists that adopted the Persian language and the religion of Islam when they conquered Iran and Iraq. The Mongols were followed by the Turks, one clan of which, , the Seljuks led by Tugrul established the Seljuk Empire, adopted Islam and invaded other Muslim countries [viz Persia and Iraq] to form a pan Islamic empire. The Ottomans were established by Osman, who broke independent of the Seljuks and formed his own empire. So which "Islamic" conquest do you refer to?
I suppose this is all from the same source where you got the info on Mohammed. Amazing, everyday here, I see that atheists are more irrational than theists.
In what way, SAM? I notice you like to spread these ridiculous accusations around the forum whenever someone says something bad (no matter how true it is) about Islam. Yet whenever Christianity or atheism is on the table, you're the first to bash.
Is there any chance that perhaps you're a little bias towards your own faith? Perhaps that is something a moderator should consider before she starts a fucking thread. Seriously, you ask a question, and the second someone disagrees with you, you call them delusional or irrational. What the fuck is that about?
Ridiculous accusations? Read your own posts in this thread and tell me what level of academia you are positing. I'm not your nanny, I don't have to hold your hand.
Form this:
No.
And this:
Nah.
we are supposed to glean this?
You like to roll your eyes a lot, but you don't both to read posts before you do it. You are the epitome of ignorance.
The truth is, as is plain to anyone who had read my posts, that I don't know if Mohammed was real or not. The only assertion I've made is that Mohammed did not need to be real.
:rolleyes:
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.