As I said, I am OPEN to the idea that the Mohammad protagonist is based on a person - IMO most likely a Christian Patriarch.
No, you're not, as is evidence by this.
We have lots of coins with Athena, Zeus, Hercules, Jesus, all sorts of people on them. So, do you think THEY existed as well? I'm just curious. Do you? I am OPEN to the idea that a God, a Goddess, Gods, Goddesses or even Alien Overlords exist. Simply provide some good evidence. Do you have some good evidence of any of these? Writing a Space Opera isn't Good Evidence of the existence of Xenu - no matter how much you jump up and down, call people stupid for not believing in Xenu and claim Ron Hubbard was the Last Prophet.
Hilarious, I see you borrow all of your material, I'm sure Dawkins would be proud. Not only that, it's quite obvious you're just another dumbass Atheist prick that's pretentious and has an an earned sense of superiority. It wouldn't be so bad if you're arguments where atleast coherent, well backed and so forth, but they are not. You're "theories," (if they can even be called as such) are nothing more than conspiracy theories based upon you're own intolerance of Islam and Muslims. As evident in all your posts regarding Muslims and Islam.
Admit it, you're not open to the idea of Muhammad (saw) existing as a person at all. You deny all of the early history of Islam and reject an evidence I give regardless of it's acceptance within Western academia. Read the sources. The evidence I am providing is accepted by academic journals and so forth, you can't keep just denying the evidence I am providing if you truly are concerned about History and the study thereof. It exists. What more do I have to post in order to get it through your thick Neanderthal-like skull? I have posted a family tree, I can post images of the grave of Muhammad, I have posted coins, papyri, numerous archaeological evidence for Muhammad (saw) and the early ummah. I mean, come the fuck on. It's hilarious how you're asking for "contemporary evidence," accepted by academic journals such as JSTOR, while at the same time, bitching for me posting individual links, saying "I can navigate the site damnt!" did you miss the references at the bottom of each link? It cites academic journals.
Also, the fact that you're lumping Muhammad (saw) and Xenu and Scientology is further proof, that you're biased and you're not willing in any
real sense to accept that Muhammad (saw) was indeed a real person. I mean, come on, it doesn't even have anything to do with whether or not you accept the spiritual assertions of Muhammad (saw) or Islam. Not only that, you continue to refer to him as a "probable Christian patriarch," what evidence do you even have for this? Hmm? You keep ranting "I'm right, oh, silly Ja'far, can't you see," but yet, I see nothing. Just bitching about having to back up your arguments. Booohoooo.
Simply provide some contemporary evidence such a person existed. Do you have such evidence Ja'far? The coin you posted are not contemporary with the Mohammad character. I asked for contemporary evidence. Do you have any?
Honestly, you truly are the most thick headed person I think I have ever had the unfortunate to talk to. I assume you're talking about the drachm of 'Abd al-Malik ibn 'Abd Allah (5th caliph of the Umayyad dynasty 685-705 C.E.), correct? Perhaps you missed the references at the bottom of the page.
1. J. Walker, A Catalogue Of The Muhammadan Coins In The British Museum, 1941, Volume I - Arab-Sassanian Coins, British Museum: London, p. 97.
2. H. Gaube, Arabosasanidische Numismatik, 1973, Handbücher Der Mittelasiatischen Numismatik - Volume 2, Klinkhardt & Biermann: Braunschweig, p. 62.
3. J. Johns, "Archaeology And The History Of Early Islam: The First Seventy Years", Journal Of The Economic And Social History Of The Orient, 2003, Volume 46, No. 4, pp. 426-427.
What more proof do I honestly have to offer in order for you to "accept," this? I mean seriously, this is ridiculous. The tombstone of 'Abassa Bint Juraij?
1. H. M. El-Hawary, "The Second Oldest Islamic Monument Known Dated AH 71 (AD 691) From The Time Of The Omayyad Calif ‘Abd el-Malik Ibn Marwan", Journal Of The Royal Asiatic Society, 1932, p. 289.
2. A. Grohmann, Arabische Paläographie II: Das Schriftwesen. Die Lapidarschrift, 1971, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften Philosophisch - Historische Klasse: Denkschriften 94/2. Hermann Böhlaus Nachf.: Wein, p. 72, Plate 10:2.
How would YOU explain the word Mohammad first appearing on a coin as a Title for Jesus?
I have already explained my theory about the coins meaning. Do I have to repeat myself? Are you really this dumb? You're reading you're own interpretation on to this coin based upon a hypothesis, in one book, that at best would be considered highly controversial. Even you would have to admit the claims of this book are highly controversial. Are you a Numismatist? Didn't think so, I mean, seriously, you can not tell me that you have researched this to the point were you could come to a solid conclusion that Muhammad was ever used a Christological title refering to Jesus Christ. If I am wrong and you have, then you should have no problem in explaining your assertions and providing proof and providing proof that match up to
your own standards.
I only mention this in that the authors are trying to logically explain how the religion Islam and it's protagonist came to be.
It's not a "logical explanation for the origins of Islam and it's protagonist," at all. It's a revisionist interpretation and hypothesis of Islamic history and is
at best highly controversial. There already exist, "logical explanations," of Islamic history that accept the evidences for Muhammad's (saw) existance and the existance of the early ummah. Even by people whom are anti-Islamic.
If you honestly think this then you're more naive than the religious folk that you so openly mock which is ironic.
Not only that, most if not all of your arguments are totally incoherent and based largely upon assumptions that are not rooted in objective fact. I am not asking you to post a continous chain of references, what I am asking for is proof of what you're claiming using the sources and evidences in the book itself. If you can't post even this, then how can I logically accept this as even being true at all? I can't and logically no one else can either. Trying to bitch about scholarship and using other such ploys doesn't give you more legitmacy either. In my opinion, if you can't prove you're arguments then just stop and admit it because it seems to me that your floundering about. Can you not accept the possibility that this book is wrong? Can you not accept the fact that this books hypothesis and claims are highly controversial? You're acting as if the whole of academia is in total agreement with this book, when it's not. Sorry.
