Mohammed didn't exist.

He doesn't show up in the historical record for 200 years after he allegedly lived. The Hadiths are literally trust me bro collected 200 years later from a foreign land hundreds of miles away from where Mohammed allegedly lived.

Hmmm, none of the places allegedly conquered by Muslims mention Muhammad, Islam or Muslims. It just so happens they didn't feel like mentioning it. Curious.

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Big if true

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Get red pilled on the MQ.

      ?si=pzyedrO3ZvzzJ95f

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Islam is fake
        >be Christian instead
        So close, yet so far...

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Correct Muhammad didn't exist. "Muḥammad" is a title that means praiseworthy that Arab Christians used for Jesus. The references to "Muḥammad" in the Quran are to Jesus. The Mythical "Muḥammad" that Muslims believe in was created by the Abbasids who also created the hadiths to gain legitimacy after the creation of the Quran. Btw the Quran was written in Arabic influenced Syriac and was a bible commentary by Unitarian Christians. Which later on had Arabic vowel dots added to it which lead to misreading's of it and confusion.
    see this playlist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXq4AK562L0&list=PL1zJ2LUq92EkBQpJlVHK2vb7YigCcmzP7&index=1

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Then who is Isa in the Quran? Because if you've read the Quran, Isa is described as the son of Mary and you get narratives from the Infancy Gospels, stories about John the Baptist, the crucifixion etc. It is recognizably Jesus, the name doesn't really matter. Muhammad is barely in the Quran and is not really a character, it's just a few offhand references and then certain obscure sections that are interpreted by tafsir exegetes as having to do with incidents from the sira narrative.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Isa is Jesus also. It's just another title for him.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Doesn't really fit with the Luxenberg stuff though there is no Syriac equivalent for the word Isa and afaik no settled on prior equivalent period, still unclear where it comes from from what I read. Definitely not Syriac though, which should be very odd since Isa is a major Quranic figure. And also definitely not the Muhammad of the Quran, compare the few verses that actually do mentioned the name/title Muhammad explicitly with the ones that mention Isa.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_in_the_Quran#Mentions_of_Muhammad_or_Ahmad
          >Muhammad is only a messenger: many Were the messenger that passed away before him. If he died or were slain, will ye then Turn back on your heels? If any did turn back on his heels, not the least harm will he do to Allah; but Allah (on the other hand) will swiftly reward those who (serve Him) with gratitude.[7]
          What does that mean in the context of Isa as the Quran presents him? It would be gibberish.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            it's clearly talking about the holy spirit

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So it's calling the Holy Spirit a messenger of God, implying the HS will lead troops in battle, saying God sends revelation down TO the HS, not through it, and calls the HS "only a messenger"? That's clearly talking about a human being.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Also that the HS can die and may have appeared to die, again with the implication that it's in battle, forgot that one.

            Idk what these verses would say if you removed all the vowels and forced what's left over into the closest Syriac reading you can find ofc, maybe if you do that it's talking about wide eyed grapes with big breasts. Not a coherent theory when it comes to the Quran as it is though, Muhammad and Isa are clearly different figures and both human.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            From that link 61:6 is particularly damning to this silly missionary claim.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            61:6 is actually probably why they're saying Muhammad is the Holy Spirit to begin with because it's a misreading (or a different understanding, I don't particularly care to rank them in terms of what's actually true because I'm not on board with either of you, to me both are just part of an evolving narrative tradition) of the Paraclete verses from the Johannine texts. And the Paraclete has been understood by Christians to be the Holy Spirit for a long, long time.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraclete

            To me that's a weak argument on their part though because not only do you still have 4 other verses that are very clear on Muhammad being a man and not the Holy Spirit but 61:6 is the only one that calls him Ahmad apparently. So if that one was about the Holy Spirit it still wouldn't explain away that Muhammad in the Quran is clearly human and clearly different than Isa.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >the Paraclete has been understood by Christians to be the Holy Spirit for a long, long time
            The only reason Christians say this is because they wish it was true. Elsewhere Jesus is also called a Paraclete. The passage in John repeats, which indicates a different hand writing the two chapters. So it's very likely that early Christians disagreed on what exactly the "other advocate" was

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You're right but what I was referring to is the fact that it's talking about someone that will come after Jesus. If it were the HS then as you have stated it must have been a human according to what the Quran is implying so an incarnation of some sort must have happened. Obviously that would create a bunch of problems for them now that another person of the trinity has taken on human nature and the like.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >it's talking about someone that will come after Jesus
            So are the Paraclete verses though and then in Acts you get Pentecost where the Holy Spirit descends on the crowds as tongues of fire. The traditional Christian exegesis is to connect those two and say that the Comforter is the Holy Spirit. Which admittedly, to my non-theologically trained mind at least, does seem to have some issues, the Holy Spirit is the Shekinah or Sakinah essentially, God's spirit dwelling in the hearts of true believers and guiding them. So are we to think that none of even the Apostles had the Holy Spirit before Pentecost? Idk what the answer to that is in Christian apologetics. But from a nominalist and historical critical approach to both books and religions it's easy to get to the Quran misunderstanding or at least radically reinterpreting the Paraclete passages.

            I don't know Koine and I've seen arguments for the Paraclete being "Ahmad" before but I'm inherently skeptical of that kind of thing because you see all new religions backdating their beliefs for legitimacy. The Gospels themselves connect Jesus to the "wise men" (Zoroastrian magi) and you have typological-christological readings of half the verses in the Tanakh. Rabbinical israelites backdate the Talmud to Mt. Sinai (and backdate the Tanakh itself by up to 3000 years actually). And then with Islam you have Bahria, Waraqah, Heraclius, the Negus, Islam being projected onto the Prophets and Adam. "My religion is primordial truth and look, it's connected to these narratives you've heard of and these representatives of older religions say I'm legit" is a powerful legitimizing motif.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >it's talking about someone that will come after Jesus
            So are the Paraclete verses though and then in Acts you get Pentecost where the Holy Spirit descends on the crowds as tongues of fire. The traditional Christian exegesis is to connect those two and say that the Comforter is the Holy Spirit. Which admittedly, to my non-theologically trained mind at least, does seem to have some issues, the Holy Spirit is the Shekinah or Sakinah essentially, God's spirit dwelling in the hearts of true believers and guiding them. So are we to think that none of even the Apostles had the Holy Spirit before Pentecost? Idk what the answer to that is in Christian apologetics. But from a nominalist and historical critical approach to both books and religions it's easy to get to the Quran misunderstanding or at least radically reinterpreting the Paraclete passages.

            I don't know Koine and I've seen arguments for the Paraclete being "Ahmad" before but I'm inherently skeptical of that kind of thing because you see all new religions backdating their beliefs for legitimacy. The Gospels themselves connect Jesus to the "wise men" (Zoroastrian magi) and you have typological-christological readings of half the verses in the Tanakh. Rabbinical israelites backdate the Talmud to Mt. Sinai (and backdate the Tanakh itself by up to 3000 years actually). And then with Islam you have Bahria, Waraqah, Heraclius, the Negus, Islam being projected onto the Prophets and Adam. "My religion is primordial truth and look, it's connected to these narratives you've heard of and these representatives of older religions say I'm legit" is a powerful legitimizing motif.

            Which isn't to say I don't think Luxenberg is a truly ridiculous guy, I do. And I think totally throwing out the sira and hadiths is a ludicrous idea, they are a 200 year telephone game and you do need the historical critical method but that doesn't make them any different for the state of sources on many other ancient and medieval figures or events. And they're there so to me reading them critically seems a lot more interesting and promising than throwing them out in favor of a conspiracy theory about the Abbasids and some from what I understand very debatable attempts to force the Quran into a Syriac mold.

            And I think it's undeniable that those other 4 verses are talking about a man called Muhammad who is a bodily, mortal man who is not the same as Isa. 61:6 I can see how you could come to a different conclusion on though, ditto passages like 80:1-11 or all the "say (O Muhammad)"s where he's not even identifiably in the Arabic and is being put there by tafsir exegetes. It's a respectable view in academia and one I'm definitely partial to that the methodology by which tafsir exegetes connect many (and it is MANY, including some verses there should be no problem reading generally) sections of the Quran to specific events in the traditional sira narrative is an after the fact reading into the text and not necessarily super accurate for figuring out the Quran on its own terms.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >200 year
            If Bukhari didn't exist the same hadiths would be found elsewhere, like where do these people think it all came from? The prophet had many companions. No matter what it's infinitely better than many historical works that are now taken as authoritative despite being completely anonymous. People see an event scribbled on a column somewhere and that must be historically true but suddenly they have a problem when reports are compiled by what is essentially a historian back in his day

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >No matter what it's infinitely better than many historical works that are now taken as authoritative despite being completely anonymous
            Like which ones? I think you're arguing against the Gospels here and it's a very irritating tendency Muslims have, if a point's made against Islam it's always "what about Christianity?" as if those are the only two conceivable frameworks in all of human thought. Higher criticism literally invented textual criticism as a field, we would not even have the methodology to critically evaluate texts to the extent that we do without biblical criticism. And it is not honest or consistent or rational to want to weaponize one textual critical field while pretending the other is totally absurd and baseless, which both of you guys (Christians and Muslims) love to do. Ehrman is great but Shoemaker is a total fraud or agent or ignoramus, or vice versa.
            >No matter what it's infinitely better than many historical works that are now taken as authoritative despite being completely anonymous. People see an event scribbled on a column somewhere and that must be historically true
            This is not how the historical method works. Get into the historical scholarship on any area of medieval history and you will discussions about how unreliable a lot of the sources are and attempts to connect what we do have to other kinds of evidence.
            >what is essentially a historian back in his day
            I wish people who think this means they're reliable NOW would go back and read them. Go read summarized Bukhari cover to cover or go read Tabari's universal history. Do the same with medieval Christian historians if you're a Christian reading this. Premodern chroniclers included absurd anachronisms, nonsense, goofy miracles stories etc. all the fricking time. Hadith science is cool as an attempt at source criticism given the tools they had on hand but that doesn't make medieval historians reliable and it certainly doesn't make hadith science enough to go on today.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Go read summarized Bukhari cover to cover or go read Tabari's universal history. Do the same with medieval Christian historians if you're a Christian reading this. Premodern chroniclers included absurd anachronisms, nonsense, goofy miracles stories etc. all the fricking time
            As some examples, Qurtubi said the Romans were descended from a son of Esau named Rome, and Nawawi talked about the fiqh of eating mermaids and Tabari says Alexander conquered China and Tibet and went to the north pole. Instead of venerating medieval scholars and historians from afar because your reminders and khutbahs tell you to, go read them. You'll find a lot that's insightful and intelligent and impressive for the time, a lot that's all of that for any time, and a lot of moronic nonsense.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Look up Historiography of Islam, and you have people mentioning Muhammad within the same years as his death.

      https://i.imgur.com/q2WSApw.jpeg

      He doesn't show up in the historical record for 200 years after he allegedly lived. The Hadiths are literally trust me bro collected 200 years later from a foreign land hundreds of miles away from where Mohammed allegedly lived.

      Hmmm, none of the places allegedly conquered by Muslims mention Muhammad, Islam or Muslims. It just so happens they didn't feel like mentioning it. Curious.

      The Muwatta Malik Hadith Collection is only 150 yrs after the Prophet.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Not just that but also he lived in Medina and learned under this guy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nafi_Mawla_Ibn_Umar#Golden_chain_of_narration

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Black Stone was sent down by Allah to this earth from Paradise.
    It was narrated that Ibn ‘Abbas said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “The Black Stone came down from Paradise.” (Narrated by al-Tirmidhi, 877; al-Nasaa’i, 2935. The hadeeth was classed as saheeh by al-Tirmidhi).

    Pislam is the most deceiving evil demon infected of the Abrahamic cult, they literally worship demons from Allah, to the Jinns who possessed "Mohammed" and bring him the Quran.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Who did Heracles and the sassanids lose to?
    Also, Abraham didn't exist, Moses didn't exist, king David difnt exist, jesus didn't exist, now not even mohammed? Who existed then?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      All of these people probably actually existed, at least in normal form that was later expanded into legend

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      None of those people existed.

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Radiochan

    weird how there were all these generals and his daughter and son in law that talked about him then.

    The monks of St Catherine's Monastery in Egypt knew him at least. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashtiname_of_Muhammad

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Quote the full passage.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Muhammad was a much more realistic figure than virtually any major religion founder prior to Joseph Smith. And if he didn’t exist, it’s irrelevant because his story had a profound impact on the world, and one that is still massively influential.

    This thread is obviously about the debate of Jesus’s existence though. Whether or not Jesus or Muhammad existed really only matters if you’re a Christian or a Muslim respectively. No one else really cares that much.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      To be fair, Joseph Smith wasn't real either.

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why do you feel the need to deny Muhammad existed, when there are many other historical figures less well attested? Seems strange to single out Muhammad, it almost seems like you're rationalizing your disbelief

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Who was Ali nephew of? Who did Fatima marry?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *