Was Prophet Mohammed a real person?

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?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, I'm also waiting for the contemporary "evidence".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And he was the greatest person that ever lived. Peace be to him.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

Yet, the ME today is a desert wasteland inhabited by poor, nomadic, warring tribes. Hmmm...

So first you say Muslims conquered other peoples and in the same breath state that millions willingly adopted Islam. Contradict much?

No, suddenly forced to be adherents of Islam. Remember, they were conquered.

The sword, of course. Duh.

They were conquered.

Simple, you try leaving Islam and you get killed.

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.

 

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.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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.

 

Wait, I thought they called christianity the most horrible. Lucky so and so's.