The non-existence of Muhammad

[Socionics Is A Cult]

My fave book on this is Did Muhammad Exist: An Inquiry into Islam's Obscure Origins by Robert Spencer, especially the "Revised and Expanded Edition"

The books summary is as follows:

A Revisionist Scenario

After the investigations of the preceding chapters, here is what we know about the traditional account of Muhammad’s life and the early days of Islam:

• No record of Muhammad’s reported death in 632 appears until more than a century after that date.

• A Christian account apparently dating from the mid-630s speaks of an Arab prophet “armed with a sword” who seems to be still alive.

• The early accounts written by the people the Arabs conquered never mention Islam, Muhammad, or the Qur’an. They call the conquerors “Ishmaelites,” “Saracens,” “Muhajirun,”
and “Hagarians,” but never “Muslims.”

• The Arab conquerors, in their coins and inscriptions, don’t mention Islam or the Qur’an for the first six decades of their conquests. Mentions of “Muhammad” are nonspecific and on at least two occasions are accompanied by a cross. The word “Muhammad” can be used both as a proper name and as an honorific.

• The Qur’an, even by the canonical Muslim account, was not distributed in its present form until the 650s. Contradicting that standard account is the fact that neither the Arabians nor the Christians and Jews in the region mention the Qur’an until the early eighth century.

• The Qur’an contains numerous characters and stories that have been taken over from Judaism, Christianity, and other sources.

• The Qur’an contains a great many words that make little or no sense in Arabic, but are clearly derived from Syro-Aramaic, or become clear when they are read as Syro-Aramaic. Even the Arabic words for the Five Pillars of Islam are derived from Syriac and Hebrew.

• During the reign of the caliph Muawiya (661–680), the Arabs constructed at least one public building whose inscription was headed by a cross.

• We begin hearing about Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, and about Islam itself in the 690s, during the reign of the caliph Abd al-Malik. Coins and inscriptions reflecting Islamic beliefs begin to appear at this time also.

• Around the same time as the reign of Abd al-Malik, Arabic became the predominant written language of the Arabian empire, supplanting Syriac and Greek.

• Abd al-Malik claimed, in a passing remark in one hadith, to have collected the Qur’an, contradicting Islamic tradition that the collection was the work of the caliph Uthman forty years earlier.

• Multiple hadiths report that Hajjaj ibn Yusuf, governor of Iraq during the reign of Abd al-Malik, edited the Qur’an and distributed his new edition to the various Arab-controlled provinces—again, something Uthman is supposed to have done decades earlier.

• Even some Islamic traditions maintains that certain common Islamic practices, such as the recitation of the Qur’an during mosque prayers, date from orders of Hajjaj ibn Yusuf, not to the earliest period of Islamic history.

• While the canonical Islamic account holds that Muhammad was born in Mecca, which was a thriving center for trade and pilgrimage, the extant records show that during the time Muhammad is supposed to have lived, it was not a city of any importance.

• Although the directive to Muslims to pray toward Mecca is supposed to have been revealed during Muhammad’s time, the earliest mosques were built facing Petra in Jordan, up until the early years of the eighth century. Some of these ancient mosques face Petra to this day.

• In the middle of the eighth century, the Abbasid dynasty supplanted the Umayyad line of Abd al-Malik. The Abbasids charged the Umayyads with impiety on a large scale. In the Abbasid period, biographical material about Muhammad began to proliferate. The first complete biography of the prophet of Islam finally appeared during this era—nearly 150 years after the traditional date of his death.

• The proliferation of hadith literature, including biographical material about Muhammad, reached its zenith in the ninth century, over two hundred years after Muhammad is traditionally said to have died.

• The biographical material that emerged situates Muhammad in an area of Arabia that never was the center for trade and pilgrimage that the canonical account of Islam’s origins depends on it to be.

In short, the lack of confirming detail in the historical record, the late development of biographical material about the Islamic prophet, the atmosphere of political and religious factionalism in which that material developed, and much more beyond suggest that the Muhammad of Islamic tradition did not exist, or if he did, he was substantially different from how that tradition portrays him.

How to make sense of all this? If the Arab forces who conquered so much territory beginning in the 630s were not energized by the teachings of a new prophet and the divine word he delivered, how did the Islamic character of their empire arise at all? If Muhammad did not exist, why was it ever considered necessary to invent him?

Any answer to these questions will of necessity be conjectural—but in light of the facts above, so is the canonical account of Islam’s origins.

I recommend the pfanderfilms Youtube channel for a lot of content about why we should doubt the existence of Muhammad, and many claims about early Islam. It's from the bias of a Christian, but I generally find it difficult to dispute the claimed facts put forward:
https://www.youtube.com/@pfanderfilms

I also recommend the MythVisionPodcast Youtube channel for a lot of content about skepitical about religious claims generally:
https://www.youtube.com/@MythVisionPodcast

I'll try to post some of my favourite videos here at some point, and maybe passages from various books depending how the discussion goes.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

[Socionics Is A Cult]

[Socionics Is A Cult]

[godslave]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad

[Sol]

There are always reasons to doubt in anything.
More important is a proof for something. The longer time events were - the lesser trusty sources which are known will be.
In case someone will publish a quality proof that there was no Muhammad or @Subteigh, - that would be interesting.

[Sol]

In Mahometanism is overtouchy relation to seen body of people, what is explaned there as provoking to "bad behavior". Mainly this is applied to women, which may be demanded to have as closed even hairs and the face. As a comparision, in today Europe culture the limitation to show women breasts would be same strange for nowdays wild tribes of forrests, islands and in Africa.

This have reminded recent behavior of Alive / @Awake, who felt strangely annoyed and produced inadequate fantasies by thoughts and pictures of women having lack of clothes. This also was matched with his negative emotional relation (his base F) and probably was an unconscious try to protect his weak S region in "dangerous situations".

Sexual attractions have much relation to Si. The least adequate processing of info is expected in weak and nonvalued functional regions, what is for Ni types.

The both Muhammed and Alive I suspect to have EIE.
An interesting case when problems of people are same what were thousands years ago and in very differing cultures. The similarity in Jung types appeared as more meaningful.

[Muira]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad

Now I love your humor. But please look for better sources then wikipedia, which is edited often for censorship reasons (ex: the time wiki stopped referring to the Ukrainian party that the US funded as a Neo-Nazi party, look through the versions with wayback machine, you'll see). However Wikipedia still holds some creditable sources, my skepticism towards wikipedia grew for many reasons, especially after I witnessed political censorship.

[godslave]

Now I love your humor. But please look for better sources then wikipedia, which is edited often for censorship reasons (ex: the time wiki stopped referring to the Ukrainian party that the US funded as a Neo-Nazi party, look through the versions with wayback machine, you'll see). However Wikipedia still holds some creditable sources, my skepticism towards wikipedia grew for many reasons, especially after I witnessed political censorship.

Thank you for your kind words !

Indeed, I know that wiki is not the greatest source but when I link a wiki page I know that the page conveys the info I want to share. I like its format and there are in general source references one can check. Now, of course one must be careful with it because it is constantly edited. I know that it is politically oriented and that there are groups of people of whom the work is to do edit some sensible pages (a very very small percentage of pages compared to the rest of the wiki database) according to the best interests of the the lobby that they are working for...

That said, in general I know what I'm doing and if I feel that the situation or subject demands a more serious source than wiki then I will obviously site it. Again, It just depends on the nature of the Info I want to share, most of my wiki references are factual knowledge (science stuff mostly) verifiable via multiple sources, it just happens that wiki is good enough (and faster/easier) in these instances.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

I'm looking forward to reading all of this.

[The Reality Denialist]

I just bothered to listen Quran. The main thing I was able to grasp was a message of submission, sometimes having damming tones, sometimes genocidal tones towards non-submissive. Anyway, to me the historicity of this dude seems rather meaningless as it just seems figurative.

[necrosebud]

Yeah sounds like what I’ve skimmed of the book

and also kinda sounds like religion

sometimes the fact that there are so many aspects like this (submit or be damned) is considered healthy or rational in any way scares me

[FreelancePoliceman]

Yeah sounds like what I’ve skimmed of the book

and also kinda sounds like religion

sometimes the fact that there are so many aspects like this (submit or be damned) is considered healthy or rational in any way scares me

Are you going to form and popularize your own values system? Based on what? Is rationality "healthy?" Does it make you or anyone else less depressed, anxious, neurotic? Jihadists aren't posting on psychology forums trying to figure out what's wrong with them.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

[FreelancePoliceman]

@Enters Laughing

To be honest I don't really understand the point of threads/discussions like these. Religion requires deception: that's the conclusion anyone willing to think honestly about the topic will come to. And any such person more or less familiar with the history (or lack of history in this case) of Islam will realize quickly that Mohammed is the same kind of person as the Buddha, Lycurgus, King Arthur, or Paul Bunyan. The only people who wouldn't think so are people who don't have rational reasons for their beliefs in the first place, and I doubt you're going to be able to convince of anything.

If there's an exception, it would be Jesus, just for the fact that modern biblical scholars are virtually unanimous in their opposition to mythicism. I don't think their reasons are very good, or there's a shred more evidence for a historical Jesus than a historical Mohammed, and I think why they say such a thing has to do more with ideological, social, and financial incentives than honest thought (just witnessing the hammed-up condescension and derision with which people like Bart Ehrman treat mythicism reveals that there's something more than dispassionate analysis going on), but someone unfamiliar with the subject will tend to accept the opinion of the "experts" in that.

[Adam Strange]

@Enters Laughing

To be honest I don't really understand the point of threads/discussions like these. Religion requires deception: that's the conclusion anyone willing to think honestly about the topic will come to. And any such person more or less familiar with the history (or lack of history in this case) of Islam will realize quickly that Mohammed is the same kind of person as the Buddha, Lycurgus, King Arthur, or Paul Bunyan. The only people who wouldn't think so are people who don't have rational reasons for their beliefs in the first place, and I doubt you're going to be able to convince of anything.

If there's an exception, it would be Jesus, just for the fact that modern biblical scholars are virtually unanimous in their opposition to mythicism. I don't think their reasons are very good, or there's a shred more evidence for a historical Jesus than a historical Mohammed, and I think why they say such a thing has to do more with ideological, social, and financial incentives than honest thought (just witnessing the hammed-up condescension and derision with which people like Bart Ehrman treat mythicism reveals that there's something more than dispassionate analysis going on), but someone unfamiliar with the subject will tend to accept the opinion of the "experts" in that.

Quoted for greatness and intellectual clarity.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

@Enters Laughing

To be honest I don't really understand the point of threads/discussions like these. Religion requires deception: that's the conclusion anyone willing to think honestly about the topic will come to. And any such person more or less familiar with the history (or lack of history in this case) of Islam will realize quickly that Mohammed is the same kind of person as the Buddha, Lycurgus, King Arthur, or Paul Bunyan. The only people who wouldn't think so are people who don't have rational reasons for their beliefs in the first place, and I doubt you're going to be able to convince of anything.

If there's an exception, it would be Jesus, just for the fact that modern biblical scholars are virtually unanimous in their opposition to mythicism. I don't think their reasons are very good, or there's a shred more evidence for a historical Jesus than a historical Mohammed, and I think why they say such a thing has to do more with ideological, social, and financial incentives than honest thought (just witnessing the hammed-up condescension and derision with which people like Bart Ehrman treat mythicism reveals that there's something more than dispassionate analysis going on), but someone unfamiliar with the subject will tend to accept the opinion of the "experts" in that.

While I think it's more difficult to persuade someone away from superstition and views generally that are not based in reason by using evidence, I still had some successful experiences.

I like to think that even if people have no irrational interest in believing in Muhammad, Jesus, Socionics etc. that my raising of skeptical arguments against will encourage others to be wary of tentatively accepting the claims of their adherents simply because the majority of people in the past have tentatively accepted that there must be some factual basis behind the superstition.

[Muira]

@Enters Laughing

To be honest I don't really understand the point of threads/discussions like these. Religion requires deception: that's the conclusion anyone willing to think honestly about the topic will come to. And any such person more or less familiar with the history (or lack of history in this case) of Islam will realize quickly that Mohammed is the same kind of person as the Buddha, Lycurgus, King Arthur, or Paul Bunyan. The only people who wouldn't think so are people who don't have rational reasons for their beliefs in the first place, and I doubt you're going to be able to convince of anything.

If there's an exception, it would be Jesus, just for the fact that modern biblical scholars are virtually unanimous in their opposition to mythicism. I don't think their reasons are very good, or there's a shred more evidence for a historical Jesus than a historical Mohammed, and I think why they say such a thing has to do more with ideological, social, and financial incentives than honest thought (just witnessing the hammed-up condescension and derision with which people like Bart Ehrman treat mythicism reveals that there's something more than dispassionate analysis going on), but someone unfamiliar with the subject will tend to accept the opinion of the "experts" in that.

That is more reasonable, especially actually looking into how Islamic sharia and overall structure resembles that of judaism(orthedox/Hasidic). Hadiths are to Talmuds(except the hadith were written by the companions of Muhammad, like Abu, Aisha, etc), and as the quran is to the torah. But as well as the overall similarities of the responsibilities and conduct of Rabbis and Imans.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Let the Stones Speak: Archaeology Challenges Islam by Dan Gibson - a good, free book available for download that destroys the Standard Islamic Narrative.

[timber]

Let the Stones Speak: Archaeology Challenges Islam by Dan Gibson - a good, free book available for download that destroys the Standard Islamic Narrative.

@sub, after the covid debacle I gave up trying to share and convince people of things. But I applaud your research. Organized religion isn't about spirituality, its about politics.

[FreelancePoliceman]

@sub, after the covid debacle I gave up trying to share and convince people of things. But I applaud your research. Organized religion isn't about spirituality, its about politics.

What is "spirituality" to you? Is it something you try to find yourself?

[timber]

What is "spirituality" to you? Is it something you try to find yourself?

That's a difficult and somewhat personal question. I don't have a good answer that would do it justice. You definitely don't need to go to church to experience it.

[Misfit]

Lekum dînukum veliye dîn. unto you is your religion, and unto me is my religion, quran chapter 109, The Disbelievers verse 6

[godslave]

Let the Stones Speak: Archaeology Challenges Islam by Dan Gibson - a good, free book available for download that destroys the Standard Islamic Narrative.

Thanks for the book !

Now, Dan Gibson as far as I know is not an Academic historian although he is presented as a Historian in the book preface (?). He's an Author and a History aficionado and incidentally a revisionist who questions some aspects of the mainstream History namely the Origin of Islam . In that sense he reminds me of Michael Cremo or some of the guys you can see on the "Ancient Aliens" Tv show or hear in the "Coast to Coast AM" broadcast.

That said, I haven't read properly his book (I just took a mental image and overview of it) but in chapter seven of the book he seems to focus on Al Hajjaj Ibn Yussuf reforms and its influence (exaggerated imho) to further support his "Petra as the origin of Islam" theory. In this case by establishing a rather intricate connection between Al Hajjaj Ibn Yussuf reforms and the Aramaic language essentially on the basis of the work of Arthur Jeffrey "The Qur’an as Scripture" (I will try to get that book if I can find it).

Fascinating ! However, I would argue that in Islam there is a whole discipline dedicated to the study of the Quran and its different Qira'at (Seven major plus three minor) of which the main way of transmission and teaching were oral (memorization by heart) and spread throughout the empire during the Umayyad caliphate and predate the reign of Abd Al Malik Ibn Marwan and Al Hajjaj reformes. So I'm not sure but I suspect that there might be some anachronisms there, I would have to check the book.

I mean, everybody in the arabic world knows who Al Hajjaj Ibn Yussuf was and what he did. He is indeed a very infamous figure that has been depicted countless times in the arabic pop culture (TV Dramas and Movies) often by great actors.

Now, Just go on Youtube and search for "Response to refuting Dan Gibson" and you'll find a whole bunch of videos in which different historians and scholars (both Muslims and non-Muslims) doing just that.

That said, Dan Gibson from what I've seen of his book, didn't seem to advocate for the non-existence of Muhammad (SAWS).

I consider myself as a non-believer Muslim (Muslim ghair Mu'min), I practice Islam since I was a kid basically and I can't stop that practice because I have a bit of OCD, I want to preserve what is left of my mental sanity and incidentally I'm godslave. That said, personally and in all objectivity (I hope), I don't think that the existence of Mohammed (SAWS) is that questionable.

First of all it goes against the Historians consensus about the historicity of Muhammad, and that consensus constitutes the authority on that matter. it is therefore historically wrong from the Academic standpoint. In that sense, one could say that the non-existence of Muhammad (SAWS) is at best a very minority opinion. I mean the Muhammad (SAWS) case is not like that of Homer, Moses, Jesus... Marco Polo and many other "Historical" figures of whom the historicity is seriously debated among Historians.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

@godslave I think the evidence he presents is convincing, and I think the traditional account about Muhammad and Islam is predominantly written by Muslims, so are not true independent accounts. Christianity has a similar problem. They claim their texts are eyewitness accounts, but they were probably written much later.

With Islam, I think it's most likely that it was originally a Christian sect amongst the Arabs, with Muhammad being a title given to Jesus, although many people throughout history were given that honorary title. I think a lot of biographical details for Muhammad may have come from real figures.

I think it's very difficult to abandon a culture or a background you were brought up in - I was raised as a Christian myself, even when I stopped believing around the age of 7.

Dan Gibson mostly focuses on the history of Mecca, and its significance in Islam. Jay Smith of the @pfanderfilms channel on Youtube makes the point (which I think is accurate), that if the Islamic account behind any one of the three of the Quran, Muhammad, and Mecca is shown to be false, then Islam is false. I think academics are especially careful not to say things publically about Muhammad or the Quran, and are even careful concerning Mecca - Patricia Crone got a lot of threats her way for what she observed about Mecca.

If what I believe about Christianity and Islam is true, then most of the world spend a lot of energy believing in something that isn't true, which bothers me a lot.

[godslave]

@godslave I think the evidence he presents is convincing, and I think the traditional account about Muhammad and Islam is predominantly written by Muslims, so are not true independent accounts. Christianity has a similar problem. They claim their texts are eyewitness accounts, but they were probably written much later.

Indeed, it is normal for a civilisation to write its own history. I mean, are we going to doubt the work of the quasi totally of Historians of antiquity on that basis ? Besides written texts although extremely important, aren't always the only sources upon which a serious historian work is based on.

As for the Christianity vs Islam history problems, I would say that there is a major difference, namely Islam is expansionist (mainly by conquests) and that expansionism expressed itself right away in its very beginning while Muhammad (SAWS) was still alive. Also, note that there is also a difference in terms of social structure and historical context between the advent of Christianity and Islam. Christianity really began after the first Council of Nicea in 325, there is around 293 years of blurred time Gap between Jesus crucifixion and the de facto christian Empire existence. To give you an idea, 293 years after the first caliphate established in Medina in 632, the Abbasid Caliphate (from 750 to sirca 1258) was already established since 118 years. As you can see, there is much more to cover historically (more material and major events) in that 293 years period in the Islamic world, that already constitutes a better historical traceability.

With Islam, I think it's most likely that it was originally a Christian sect amongst the Arabs, with Muhammad being a title given to Jesus, although many people throughout history were given that honorary title. I think a lot of biographical details for Muhammad may have come from real figures.

Although both Jewish and Christians did exist in the Arab world at that time, It is unlikely that Islam might have been originally a Christian Sect. Arabs sociology is based on tribes (clans and "houses"), one must be familiar with these systems. There isn't a trace that prove or elude to any king of Christian sect in the Quraysh branch Muhammad (saws) belonged to (namely Banu Hashim see also this ).As far as I know, Pre-Islamic Arab tribes who converted to Christianity don't come from Fihr ibn Malik Branch.

I think it's very difficult to abandon a culture or a background you were brought up in - I was raised as a Christian myself, even when I stopped believing around the age of 7.

That's true. I would say that I wanted to believe when I was kid but the conflict was already there. It came from the fact that I was raised in a double culture I have a mixed cultural background. I've always had a "rational mind" that is very sensible to contradictions so I doubted all the time. Also it was weird to see myself as more merciful than "God". I wasn't seriously into Islam before the age 11, that's when my father became seriously into Islam and imposed its practice at home...

Dan Gibson mostly focuses on the history of Mecca, and its significance in Islam. Jay Smith of the @pfanderfilms channel on Youtube makes the point (which I think is accurate), that if the Islamic account behind any one of the three of the Quran, Muhammad, and Mecca is shown to be false, then Islam is false. I think academics are especially careful not to say things publically about Muhammad or the Quran, and are even careful concerning Mecca - Patricia Crone got a lot of threats her way for what she observed about Mecca.

Fair enough, I will try to take a better look at Dan Gibson work if I can.

I don't know what "Islam is false" means, that sounds like a nonsense to me. Islam is the Muslims, period. Without Muslims there is no Islam but since Muslim do exist therefore Islam do exist. Even If "False" means "untrue"in that instance, that doesn't disqualify the existence of Islam only its legitimacy in terms of belief system. Most people believe what their parents believe(d) anyway. All of it is absurd as far as I'm concerned, we created the Gods in our image, the rest is literature. Humanity just believe in spiritual things because it needs it, it brings stability and a little bit of hope.

I agree that criticizing Islam even in academics circles can be very problematic especially nowadays. However, most academics do it all the time and debates about Religions including Islam are going everyday since a very long time. To me, it doesn't make sense to use fanatics threats as an argument to substantiate an elledge restriction to present evidences that go against the consensus. Historian must do their job without fear, it is the responsibility of the state to guarantee their security and provide a special one if need be.

If what I believe about Christianity and Islam is true, then most of the world spend a lot of energy believing in something that isn't true, which bothers me a lot.

I see what you mean. Personally it doesn't bother me, let people believe what makes their life easier to live as long as they don't try to impose their beliefs on others in any way. Indeed, Religious prozelitism bothers me a lot !

[Socionics Is A Cult]

@godslave

The Quran has passages in it that exist in earlier Syro-Aramaic homilies to Jesus (this video covers it somewhat: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sd1isjyhihk. I think Islam and Muhammad were created when the Arabs wanted a religion of their own to rival that of the Christian Byzantines they came in contact with. Some of the Arab coins of the 7th century have crosses on them for example, in imitation of Byzantine coins, which would be an odd thing to put on a coin if you were a Muslim who denied the divinity of Jesus. There are various inconsistencies in the traditional Islamic account that I think shows Islam to have a fabricated history.

I don't know what "Islam is false" means, that sounds like a nonsense to me. Islam is the Muslims, period. Without Muslims there is no Islam but since Muslim do exist therefore Islam do exist. Even If "False" means "untrue"in that instance, that doesn't disqualify the existence of Islam only its legitimacy in terms of belief system. Most people believe what their parents believe(d) anyway. All of it is absurd as far as I'm concerned, we created the Gods in our image, the rest is literature. Humanity just believe in spiritual things because it needs it, it brings stability and a little bit of hope.

I think "Islam is false" from a secular perspective, based on what I think are fatal errors in its historical claims. I don't say that based on spiritual claims.

[godslave]

@godslave

The Quran has passages in it that exist in earlier Syro-Aramaic homilies to Jesus (this video covers it somewhat: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sd1isjyhihk. I think Islam and Muhammad were created when the Arabs wanted a religion of their own to rival that of the Christian Byzantines they came in contact with. Some of the Arab coins of the 7th century have crosses on them for example, in imitation of Byzantine coins, which would be an odd thing to put on a coin if you were a Muslim who denied the divinity of Jesus. There are various inconsistencies in the traditional Islamic account that I think shows Islam to have a fabricated history.

Well, I haven't watched that video yet but my theory for the advent of Islam is that the political context of the time called for the creation of a powerful state. The Arabian Peninsula was under the threats of conquest by one of two neighboring empires. Byzantium to the west and the Persians to the east. The economic and cultural sovereignty of the Arabs, especially the ruling classes of the great tribes, was therefore also threatened. As these tribes were in competition with each other, it was first necessary to reunite them in a great alliance. From a strategic point of view, a religious reform (monotheism) was an excellent way of uniting these tribes and creating a large army capable of resisting the threats of adjacent empires. Islam became an empire, by first defeating both the Byzantines and the Persians and then expands its territory throughout history.

As for the Islam being a fabricating History (which is different from "story"), I think that no matter the inconsistencies one might perceive, they don't constitute a definitive proof to claim that Islam is a fabricated history, I mean what purpose such fabrication (a conspiracy really) would serve ? I don't know about the Arab coins you mentioned but if true, then there must be another explanation like for instance that these coins might have been temporarily modified during a period of transition during which Byzantines coins circulated because of their intrinsic value as gold and silver (?) coins. Maybe these "Arab coins" are "collectors" you know like rare pieces I don't know. Again claiming that Islam is a fabricated history based on that would be a nonsense imho.

I think "Islam is false" from a secular perspective, based on what I think are fatal errors in its historical claims. I don't say that based on spiritual claims.

Okay, that's a form of historical revisionism. Ancient Aliens Theory is one too. But Fair enough !

[Socionics Is A Cult]

@godslave

• The Arab conquerors, in their coins and inscriptions, don’t mention Islam or the Qur’an for the first six decades of their conquests. Mentions of “Muhammad” are nonspecific and on at least two occasions are accompanied by a cross. The word “Muhammad” can be used both as a proper name and as an honorific.

Did Muhammad Exist: An Inquiry into Islam's Obscure Origins by Robert Spencer

[FreelancePoliceman]

@Socionics Is A Cult

I don't know much myself about this, but I took a class on early Islamic history in undergrad, and my professor/books expressed the opinion that Islam likely arose from Jewish contact (rather than Christian). Islam's dietary and other laws are similar to Judaism's, there's a shared reverence for the written word that didn't really exist in the same way with Christians at the time, Jerusalem seems to have been the original direction in which Muslims prayed, Islam's own traditions indicate more contact with Jews than Christians, they share a firm monotheism (rather than acceptance of the Trinity); the only real Christian element I can think of is acknowledgement of Jesus, and even he is just treated more or less as another prophet in the Jewish tradition. Wouldn't it make more sense to see Islam as a deviant Judaism?

[godslave]

@Socionics Is A Cult

I don't know much myself about this, but I took a class on early Islamic history in undergrad, and my professor/books expressed the opinion that Islam likely arose from Jewish contact (rather than Christian). Islam's dietary and other laws are similar to Judaism's, there's a shared reverence for the written word that didn't really exist in the same way with Christians at the time, Jerusalem seems to have been the original direction in which Muslims prayed, Islam's own traditions indicate more contact with Jews than Christians, they share a firm monotheism (rather than acceptance of the Trinity); the only real Christian element I can think of is acknowledgement of Jesus, and even he is just treated more or less as another prophet in the Jewish tradition. Wouldn't it make more sense to see Islam as a deviant Judaism?

There are all deviants of zoroastrianism !

Yes, I agree that Islam is in many ways closer to Judaism than Christianity although if we extrapolate a bit we could see elements from Christianity in Islam the most obvious being the integration of Jesus story (albeit very slightly modified) in the Islamic canon (The Quran). The less obvious being a quasi trinity between Allah, The Prophet and the Archangel Gabriel who is often referred to as the "ruh al qudus" (The Holy spirit (spiritus sanctus)). Also the fact that in sunni Islam the four first caliphs ( Abu Bakr, Umar ibn al-Khattab, Uthman ibn Affan and Ali ibn Abi Talib) (the Rashidun) were kinda special, a parallel can be drawn with the Four Evangelists (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John).

[Socionics Is A Cult]

@Socionics Is A Cult

I don't know much myself about this, but I took a class on early Islamic history in undergrad, and my professor/books expressed the opinion that Islam likely arose from Jewish contact (rather than Christian). Islam's dietary and other laws are similar to Judaism's, there's a shared reverence for the written word that didn't really exist in the same way with Christians at the time, Jerusalem seems to have been the original direction in which Muslims prayed, Islam's own traditions indicate more contact with Jews than Christians, they share a firm monotheism (rather than acceptance of the Trinity); the only real Christian element I can think of is acknowledgement of Jesus, and even he is just treated more or less as another prophet in the Jewish tradition. Wouldn't it make more sense to see Islam as a deviant Judaism?

I think they must have been in contact with both Christian and Jewish thought, because they include both Christian and Jewish myths in their own myths, and in their central text. The Muslims wanted to see themselves as distinct from the Byzantine Christians they were fighting against, and a smaller population of Jews.

"Muhammad" is likely just a title meaning "praiseworthy" that was originally applied to Jesus by the Christians and later the Muslims (although that title had been used for more than a thousand years prior by various groups), so Jesus was originally a central figure to Islam. Over time, Jesus and "Muhammad" became two separate figures to the Muslims. I've posted a few videos that cover this in this thread, I'd hate to pick out one specifically that covers this point.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

@godslave video that covers some of Dan Gibson's work. )He's not in the video). He suggests that Petra was the original holy city, not Mecca.



More on Petra:

[Muira]

@godslave video that covers some of Dan Gibson's work. )He's not in the video). He suggests that Petra was the original holy city, not Mecca.



More on Petra:

I was personally going to write an essay debunking this, but here is a solid video.


I will personally write an essay on debunking the nonexistence of Muhammad later on when I finish my exams this Monday.

I still find a lot of the reasoning on refuting the reference to Mecca in the quran to be very weak.

I will continue on my freetime.

Additionally I must add, it seems only atheists and secular individuals have a consistent reason to doubt Muhammads existence, while Christians need to realize that the same arguments also apply to Jesus Christ. If Jesus Christ was real, hell he wasn't even white let alone had the name Jesus.

Currently I am continuing my studies on Hebrew, Arabic, aramaic, greek, and latin language to deconstruct the Abrahamic faiths on my own. However, I have barely learned some old greek, not even touched latin.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

I was personally going to write an essay debunking this, but here is a solid video.


I will personally write an essay on debunking the nonexistence of Muhammad later on when I finish my exams this Monday.

I still find a lot of the reasoning on refuting the reference to Mecca in the quran to be very weak.

I will continue on my freetime.

Additionally I must add, it seems only atheists and secular individuals have a consistent reason to doubt Muhammads existence, while Christians need to realize that the same arguments also apply to Jesus Christ. If Jesus Christ was real, hell he wasn't even white let alone had the name Jesus.

Currently I am continuing my studies on Hebrew, Arabic, aramaic, greek, and latin language to deconstruct the Abrahamic faiths on my own. However, I have barely learned some old greek, not even touched latin.

The historical and archaeological evidence for the Muhammad of Islam seems very weak to me.

Regarding the video you posted.

Saudis found no evidence of Mecca as a settlement before the 7th century (and I don't think they've even done that), nevermind the time of Abraham. No reason for Muhammad to be a merchant there. A rock inscription says that the Ka'aba was built in the year 697-698 AD. Abraham in the earlier Jewish texts had no association with "Mecca" or Petra. (I don't regard Abraham as a historical figure).

It seems that video has not explored Gibson's diagrams for the directions the qiblas of the earliest mosques pointed to. It also ignores the earlier work of Patricia Crone who concluded that Mecca was unlikely to be a centre of trade with Muhammad being a merchant there, without reference to qibla data. She thought it more likely that Islam originated in northern Arabia.

Dan Gibson says the following for the earliest known mosques:

Quba Mosque, 622 CE / 1 AH
Medina, Saudi Arabia
GPS: 24.439619, 39.617228
Torn down and rebuilt in 1043 CE and many times after. The original qibla direction cannot be deter-
mined.

Prophet’s Mosque, 623 CE / 2 AH
Medina, Saudi Arabia
GPS: 24.467615, 39.611376
Torn down and rebuilt in 707 CE and many times after. The last significant rebuild was in 1951. The
original qibla direction cannot be determined.

Mosque of the Two Qiblas, 626 CE / 5 AH
Medina, Saudi Arabia
GPS: 24.484089, 39.578658
Torn down and rebuilt several times. The last significant
rebuild was in 1987. Original qibla direction was appar-
ently observed in the ruined foundation under the old
mosque. It faced north generally towards Jerusalem or
Petra. No accurate measurements were made at that time.

Janad Early Mosque, 627 CE / 6 AH
Janad, Yemen
GPS: 13.668710, 44.166391
Torn down in 1011 CE and rebuilt. The original qibla direction cannot be determined.

Al Mudhmar Mosque, 627 CE / 6 AH
Samail, Oman
GPS: 23.311375, 58.010684
Torn down several times, the most recent was in 1979. The original qibla direction cannot be deter-
mined.

Jowatha Mosque, 629 CE / 8 AH
al-Kilabiyah, Saudi Arabia
GPS: 25.469615, 49.678872
Torn down in the 9th century and rebuilt. The original qibla direction cannot be determined.

Xian Mosque, 629 CE / 8 AH
Guangzhou, China
GPS: 23.148262, 113.255447
This may be the earliest extant mosque. It faces Petra and
contains the graves of Sa’d ibn Abī Waqqāṣ and 40 emigrants
from the Middle East to China in the first century of Islam.

Al Mudhmar Mosque, 627 CE / 6 AH
Samail, Oman
GPS: 23.311375, 58.010684
Torn down several times, the most recent was in 1979. The original qibla direction cannot be deter-
mined.

Jowatha Mosque, 629 CE / 8 AH
al-Kilabiyah, Saudi Arabia
GPS: 25.469615, 49.678872
Torn down in the 9th century and rebuilt. The original qibla direction cannot be determined.

Xian Mosque, 629 CE / 8 AH
Guangzhou, China
GPS: 23.148262, 113.255447
This may be the earliest extant mosque. It faces Petra and
contains the graves of Sa’d ibn Abī Waqqāṣ and 40 emigrants
from the Middle East to China in the first century of Islam.

Ṣaḥābah Mosque, 600-699 CE / 20-80 AH
Massawa, Eritrea
GPS: 15.611981, 39.480632
Dating to the early 7th century CE, it is believed to be the
first mosque on the African continent. It was reportedly built
by Companions of the Prophet Muḥammad who came to Ab-
yssinia on the First Hegira. While this mosque is in Eritrea
it was part of Abyssinia at the time. The companions were
fleeing persecution of the followers of Muḥammad by the
people in the Holy City. The current structure is of later con-
struction as some features, like the miḥrāb, did not develop
until later in Islamic architecture (89 AH/708 CE). So, this
mosque was likely built as a memorial to these early follow-
ers of Muḥammad.

Guangzhou Mosque, 627 CE / 6 AH
Guangzhou, China
GPS: 23.125902, 113.253737
The Great Mosque of Guangzhou is also known also as Huaisheng Mosque (Memorial of the Holy
Prophet) or the Guangta Mosque (Light Tower Mosque). It is thought to be one of the earliest surviv-
ing mosques in China and has the earliest freestanding minaret in China. Chinese manuscripts from
1206 CE claim that the mosque was originally built by Abu Waqqas on the first Muslim mission to
China in the 630s, during Muḥammad’s lifetime. The mosque was rebuilt
in 1350 during the Yuan dynasty under the rule of Zhizheng (1341-1368)
and rebuilt again in 1695 under Emperor Kangzi of the Qing dynasty after
it suffered fire damage. When examining this mosque in 2008, Dan Gibson
did not see any evidence that the mosque had been reoriented. Gibson first
classified this mosque as Petra-facing, but once he understood between-
facing mosques, he changed the classification to Between.

Umar ibn al-Khattab, 634 CD / 13 AH
Dawmat al Jandal, Saudi Arabia
GPS: 29.811933, 39.867393
This mosque was torn down and rebuilt in 1793 CE. The original qibla direction cannot be determined.

Gaza Congregational Mosque, 635 CD / 14 AH
Gaza, Palestine
GPS: 31.504283, 34.464567
This mosque contains three miḥrābs. GPS directions are: Petra:
144, Between 155, Mecca 153. It has been torn down and re-
built multiple times, but the original miḥrābs continue to exist.
Worshipers can pray at any of the miḥrābs.
[...]

Regarding the Valley of Weeping (Becca / Baka /Bakkah), he says the following:

In the Islamic account, the bubbling water becomes the well Zamzam. Later, Abraham
returns to the valley to teach Hagar and Ishmael the ways of God and to build an altar for wor-
ship. That altar was known as the House of God, very much like Isaac’s altar at Bethel
( ), which also means house of God. 88 This former altar would later be built up into the
Ka’ba.

The Islamic account has the Kaaba as the location of Abraham's house, and the Zamzam well right by it (as it is now). So if we're to believe the account, Hagar was thrown out into the wilderness by Abraham, before she was fortunately able to find the well a few metres away.

At least one video I posted earlier shows that many of the features of the Muslim pilgrimage fit Petra a lot better than Mecca - the current Muslim account almost literally makes mountains out of molehills, and has had to fabricate and synthesize a lot for the modern Muslim consumer. Even the Zamzam well has to use Western technology to ensure the "limitless" well never runs out of water.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

@godslave having your own religion would be very useful to have power over people and to unify them, including when fighting external enemies.

I don't want to seem irrational like those who think aliens influenced ancient civilizations, but I can understand that I might seem that way! I hold a view that most people on a topic most people (in the West anyway) don't have a view on, or they tentatively accept the historical claims that Muslims make. But I do so after reading and seeing quite a lot of evidence on the matter: certainly a lot more than most Muslims who I doubt examine the matter critically like a historian or an archaeologist might.

[godslave]

@godslave having your own religion would be very useful to have power over people and to unify them, including when fighting external enemies.

Yes, that's precisely what I was saying !

I don't want to seem irrational like those who think aliens influenced ancient civilizations, but I can understand that I might seem that way! I hold a view that most people on a topic most people (in the West anyway) don't have a view on, or they tentatively accept the historical claims that Muslims make. But I do so after reading and seeing quite a lot of evidence on the matter: certainly a lot more than most Muslims who I doubt examine the matter critically like a historian or an archaeologist might.

There is nothing wrong in being irrational, I like Alien Theory it's very entertaining (plus I was into Ufology myself so... ).

Historians don't rely exclusively on historical claims that Muslims make. I mean, that's not serious to believe that . I agree however that adhering to a belief system like any Organized religion obviously induces a bias (or propensity) in terms of objectivity and critical thinking.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Yes, that's precisely what I was saying !



There is nothing wrong in being irrational, I like Alien Theory it's very entertaining (plus I was into Ufology myself so... ).

Historians don't rely exclusively on historical claims that Muslims make. I mean, that's not serious to believe that . I agree however that adhering to a belief system like any Organized religion obviously induces a bias (or propensity) in terms of objectivity and critical thinking.

I don't know of many "professional"/"academic" historians who have seriously looked into the historical claims of Islam from a neutral perspective. Tom Holland wrote a book on Islam, but he's not a "professional" historian, and he also seemed liked he was trying hard to not saying anything that would offend Muslim sensibilities (he often said things in a vague and indirect way). Jay Smith of the Youtube channel Pfanderfilms doesn't seem to have any academic qualifications in history, and I think you said the same of Dan Gibson (which I can believe): I think also both Smith and Gibson are both interested in the claims of Islam because they're Christians, and want to dispute Islam to the benefit of Christianity - but I still think they have made a valid and honest attempt at analyzing the historical and archaeological records, and the research of other people.

I fear that academically trained historians (with a few exceptions) are scared of publishing research on Islam, and so wouldn't even want to study it. I also know of research that has been published anonymously by various people, so I think it's a common problem with Islam.

I suspect there are a lot of Muslim scholars who claim to be neutral and qualified historians of Islam, but I'd be skeptical of such claims! I'd have to see their research, although I suspect it is rarely translated into English (the number of texts translated to and from Arabic for example is very low generally). I know from Christianity that when someone calls themselves a "Bible scholar", "Biblical historian", "Biblical archaeologist" etc., they are usually Christian and have their own biases. But their claims should be examined on their own merit of course.

[godslave]

I don't know of many "professional"/"academic" historians who have seriously looked into the historical claims of Islam from a neutral perspective. Tom Holland wrote a book on Islam, but he's not a "professional" historian, and he also seemed liked he was trying hard to not saying anything that would offend Muslim sensibilities (he often said things in a vague and indirect way). Jay Smith of the Youtube channel Pfanderfilms doesn't seem to have any academic qualifications in history, and I think you said the same of Dan Gibson (which I can believe): I think also both Smith and Gibson are both interested in the claims of Islam because they're Christians, and want to dispute Islam to the benefit of Christianity - but I still think they have made a valid and honest attempt at analyzing the historical and archaeological records, and the research of other people.

I fear that academically trained historians (with a few exceptions) are scared of publishing research on Islam, and so wouldn't even want to study it. I also know of research that has been published anonymously by various people, so I think it's a common problem with Islam.

I suspect there are a lot of Muslim scholars who claim to be neutral and qualified historians of Islam, but I'd be skeptical of such claims! I'd have to see their research, although I suspect it is rarely translated into English (the number of texts translated to and from Arabic for example is very low generally). I know from Christianity that when someone calls themselves a "Bible scholar", "Biblical historian", "Biblical archaeologist" etc., they are usually Christian and have their own biases. But their claims should be examined on their own merit of course.

That's a pretty strong a priori you have there. Muslim scholars are not the people I would refer to here but rather Non-Religious Academic Historian or the Institution itself if you prefer. Now, you are questioning the validity of the work of historians because of an eledge fear of Islam fanatics. I mean, I can understand that assumption now in our post Iranian Revolution-Salman Rushdie- 9/11- ISIS etc era. In this day and age, criticising Islam or questioning the historical validity of a certain number of things related to Islam might be risky and scare some people, however, it hasn't always been the case. Indeed, what about the work, Data and acquired Knowledge of non-Muslim and atheists Pro Historians specialized in the History of the Arab world (pre and post Islam) before the aforementioned events ? Besides, this kind of questioning (revision) covers a lot of domains including Archaeology, geology and a whole scientific processes like carbon-14 dating etc...

Regarding Smith and Gibson work we (as non Pro Historians) can only forge personal opinions about its validity. I mean do these people have submitted their work to pros ? Can there work be subject to peer reviewed in the first place ? Because since they are not Pro Historians their work must be seen as valid by a pro before even be submitted at the said pro initiative to peer review. But given the nature of the subject, I think that it being taken seriously by the Pros is unlikely not because of any fear but more because it questions the expertise of, as Jean-Luc Godard would say, the professionals of the profession. I agree that people's claims and work should be be examined on their own merit.

Amateur Historians in the Age of the Internet: A Look at YouTube

[Socionics Is A Cult]

That's a pretty strong a priori you have there. Muslim scholars are not the people I would refer to here but rather Non-Religious Academic Historian or the Institution itself if you prefer. Now, you are questioning the validity of the work of historians because of an eledge fear of Islam fanatics. I mean, I can understand that assumption now in our post Iranian Revolution-Salman Rushdie- 9/11- ISIS etc era. In this day and age, criticising Islam or questioning the historical validity of a certain number of things related to Islam might be risky and scare some people, however, it hasn't always been the case. Indeed, what about the work, Data and acquired Knowledge of non-Muslim and atheists Pro Historians specialized in the History of the Arab world (pre and post Islam) before the aforementioned events ? Besides, this kind of questioning (revision) covers a lot of domains including Archaeology, geology and a whole scientific processes like carbon-14 dating etc...

Regarding Smith and Gibson work we (as non Pro Historians) can only forge personal opinions about its validity. I mean do these people have submitted their work to pros ? Can there work be subject to peer reviewed in the first place ? Because since they are not Pro Historians their work must be seen as valid by a pro before even be submitted at the said pro initiative to peer review. But given the nature of the subject, I think that it being taken seriously by the Pros is unlikely not because of any fear but more because it questions the expertise of, as Jean-Luc Godard would say, the professionals of the profession. I agree that people's claims and work should be be examined on their own merit.

Amateur Historians in the Age of the Internet: A Look at YouTube

There's certainly been a few historians who have critiqued the Muslim account in the distant past (before the modern era), but not many, even less than those who critiqued the Christian account.

Jay Smith has had academics on his channel before, and their interpretation can be examined by anybody by looking at the alleged evidence themselves. I have an archaeological background myself, and the archaeological claims seems sound to me, as does the historical claims for the most part (some is speculative, and in-progress research) - but the alleged evidence presented doesn't seem especially complex to me, and I think the average layperson can easily evaluate the claims themselves.

Researchers like Dan Gibson have published papers on Islam, and other scholars read and respond to such research themselves.

The Saudis dug up the area around The Kaaba and found no evidence of Mecca being an ancient city, so there's (probably) no archaeological evidence to examine there, even if the Saudis were willing to have it analysed. There are many Sanaa manuscripts too relating to early Islam, a few have been analysed and have challenged the Islamic historical claims regarding how the Quran was created and edited, but the authorities there have been hesitant to allow further research. So naturally, anyone who wishes to examine potential evidence is limited not only by what time has left, but by humans too.

One person who chooses to use an alias is "Christoph Luxenberg", who wrote The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran. There's also the ex-Muslim who goes by the name Saint Murad who has recently done what he believes is the most literal, accurate translation of the Quran into English, who chooses an alias. Another person who uses an alias is "Ibn Warraq" because he was afraid of "becoming the second Salman Rushdie." - that was before Salman Rushdie was recently attacked. There's very much an atmosphere of fear that limits examination of Islamic in the West, nevermind in Muslim countries where it can be illegal.