• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Did Mohammed actually exist? Or is there a question as with Jesus?

 
 
 
Thanks! She is trying to decide if her textbook is reliable. It says, "Jesus said," and it says "Muslims believe Muhammad said." How unexpected, right?
 
Unless the textbook is an analysis of religion, I wouldn't worry about it. The author is probably a Christian who has a blind spot regarding their beliefs.
 
There's no question. Muhammad and Jesus both existed.
And the moon landing actually happened.
And Barack Obama was born in the USA
The holocaust wasn't faked.
And vaccines don't turn you into lizard-worshipping zombies.
If there’s a bustle in your hedgerow you don't have to be alarmed.
 
Scholarly consensus is that both probably existed, although you will find minority movements arguing that they didn't.
 
The question doesn't even make sense. If Mohammed didn't exist, then who did the angel Gabriel recite the Koran to?

Stupid atheists with their nonsensical claims. :mad:
 
Rhea, it is sad to see the author of that text taint the information by his/her tone of surety. Quotes of Jesus certainly hold no more historical surety than of Mo. That falls into the realm of faith and religion.

Lion IRC said:
There's no question. Muhammad and Jesus both existed.
Click to expand...
The deeper into the fog of human history one goes, the harder the questions get, and the less surety a rational historian has. Going this far back there is almost no such thing as "no question". Heck there are even people who question who authored William Shakespeare's work from just 400 years ago. But I would say that both above persons were most probably real people that were the source of the fabulous tales.

If there’s a bustle in your hedgerow you don't have to be alarmed.
Click to expand...
That depends on where you live ;)
 
Did Mohammed actually exist? Or is there a question as with Jesus?

The great point to bear in mind is that no-one ever existed before the conspiracy-theorists on here.
 
The question is nonsensical.

There are millions of people called Mohammed, and millions called Jesus. So in that respect, there's no question that Jesus existed (and still exists), as did (and does) Mohammed.

Of course, simply having the name is not what the question is about. But when you start to look at what the question IS about, it all gets very woolly, very fast.

It's unremarkable if there was someone by those names (or similar names; or totally dissimilar names) whose biographies roughly coincide with the non-supernatural claims of their followers (approximate dates and places of birth and death; details of family and friends; life events with no supernatural overtones).

Likely thousands of people could approximately fit the frame as an historical Jesus or an historical Mohammed, if we allow such a loose definition. But to allow such a thing is to miss the point - Nobody cares. The ONLY reason to care is because of the SUPERNATURAL claims made of these characters. And there is exactly ZERO reliable evidence for ANY supernatural claims, both by there two alleged characters and by anybody else, living, dead or undead.

Perhaps there is (or once was) a newspaper reporter called Clark Kent. But unless he could leap tall buildings in a single bound, who gives a rat's arse?

Perhaps there once was a bastard son of a carpenter's girlfriend who became a preacher and got crucified. But if that's all he did and all he was, why should we give a flying fuck?

Very little is certain about stuff that happened hundreds of years ago, much less thousands of years. But one thing is for sure - nobody is the son of a god, nor is anyone the messenger of any gods. Because there are no gods. The very idea is beyond laughable, and cannot withstand an instant's logical analysis. For any god concept that is worthy of the name, the actual existence of such an entity other than as fiction is impossible. Just as superheros exist only in fiction, so it is with gods. They are inventions that can only exist in the realm of narrative, where physical law and the rules of logic need not apply.

In short, the question 'Did Mohammed actually exist?' (or 'Did Jesus actually exist?') is only superficially a reasonable question to ask; When examined carefully, we find that the question itself is so vague as to eliminate the possibility of an answer - and any attempt to frame a more precise vrsion of the question, which includes a specific description of what is meant by 'Mohammed' (or 'Jesus') in this context, leads either to a banal query whose answer is obviously yes - You need only to consult a phone book to show that very large numbers of Mohammeds exist; or to a set of supernatural attributes that can be ruled out as existing, by the simple fact that they are neither evidenced nor possible.
 
Rhea said:
Daughter is curious.
Click to expand...

He's personally written (or dictated) letters to various kings around the world that have survived. He met with diplomats and dignitaries who wrote about it. As well as us having collected his surviving personal belongings in the Topkapi palace in Istanbul. They've got his beard and everything. They have the original door to the Kaba. I think it's beyond doubt that he existed.

I think the better question is, is the person described in the Quran, Mohammed. The answer is that we don't know. The last 50 years a whole bunch of very early Qurans have emerged. And it turns out that the Quran has the same problems as the Bible. Very rapidly the Quran started to vary greatly. Various attempts were made to standardise the Quran throughout the Islamic world. But they weren't really successful until the invention of the printing press. Ie, exactly the same problems any manually copied book would have.

Yes, he existed. He was most likely a man. A single man, and not an amalgamation of several. He was the first leader of the Muslim world. He was most likely a brilliant general. He had an orange beard. But that's about where it ends. Still, more independently verified information than with Jesus. For all we know Jesus could be the nickname of a donkey, whose real name was Steve.
 
bilby said:
The question is nonsensical.

There are millions of people called Mohammed, and millions called Jesus. So in that respect, there's no question that Jesus existed (and still exists), as did (and does) Mohammed.

Of course, simply having the name is not what the question is about. But when you start to look at what the question IS about, it all gets very woolly, very fast.

It's unremarkable if there was someone by those names (or similar names; or totally dissimilar names) whose biographies roughly coincide with the non-supernatural claims of their followers (approximate dates and places of birth and death; details of family and friends; life events with no supernatural overtones).

Likely thousands of people could approximately fit the frame as an historical Jesus or an historical Mohammed, if we allow such a loose definition. But to allow such a thing is to miss the point - Nobody cares. The ONLY reason to care is because of the SUPERNATURAL claims made of these characters. And there is exactly ZERO reliable evidence for ANY supernatural claims, both by there two alleged characters and by anybody else, living, dead or undead.

Perhaps there is (or once was) a newspaper reporter called Clark Kent. But unless he could leap tall buildings in a single bound, who gives a rat's arse?

Perhaps there once was a bastard son of a carpenter's girlfriend who became a preacher and got crucified. But if that's all he did and all he was, why should we give a flying fuck?

Very little is certain about stuff that happened hundreds of years ago, much less thousands of years. But one thing is for sure - nobody is the son of a god, nor is anyone the messenger of any gods. Because there are no gods. The very idea is beyond laughable, and cannot withstand an instant's logical analysis. For any god concept that is worthy of the name, the actual existence of such an entity other than as fiction is impossible. Just as superheros exist only in fiction, so it is with gods. They are inventions that can only exist in the realm of narrative, where physical law and the rules of logic need not apply.

In short, the question 'Did Mohammed actually exist?' (or 'Did Jesus actually exist?') is only superficially a reasonable question to ask; When examined carefully, we find that the question itself is so vague as to eliminate the possibility of an answer - and any attempt to frame a more precise vrsion of the question, which includes a specific description of what is meant by 'Mohammed' (or 'Jesus') in this context, leads either to a banal query whose answer is obviously yes - You need only to consult a phone book to show that very large numbers of Mohammeds exist; or to a set of supernatural attributes that can be ruled out as existing, by the simple fact that they are neither evidenced nor possible.
Click to expand...

Well, I would disagree. Whoever is at the root of the Jesus story only becomes important because of things his followers did a couple hundred years after his death, based on the supernatural claims. Muhammed was much more directly impactful during his own time. He conquered the whole of Arabia, uniting the various Arab tribes, erased the old gods, and many of the old ways, replacing them with a Abrahamic-inspired faith. He did that himself, while Jesus was probably just one of many doomsday preachers from some backwater region of the Roman Empire who probably drew the ire of the local priests and was executed.
 
bilby said:
The question is nonsensical.

There are millions of people called Mohammed, and millions called Jesus. So in that respect, there's no question that Jesus existed (and still exists), as did (and does) Mohammed.

Of course, simply having the name is not what the question is about. But when you start to look at what the question IS about, it all gets very woolly, very fast.

It's unremarkable if there was someone by those names (or similar names; or totally dissimilar names) whose biographies roughly coincide with the non-supernatural claims of their followers (approximate dates and places of birth and death; details of family and friends; life events with no supernatural overtones).

Likely thousands of people could approximately fit the frame as an historical Jesus or an historical Mohammed, if we allow such a loose definition. But to allow such a thing is to miss the point - Nobody cares. The ONLY reason to care is because of the SUPERNATURAL claims made of these characters. And there is exactly ZERO reliable evidence for ANY supernatural claims, both by there two alleged characters and by anybody else, living, dead or undead.

Perhaps there is (or once was) a newspaper reporter called Clark Kent. But unless he could leap tall buildings in a single bound, who gives a rat's arse?

Perhaps there once was a bastard son of a carpenter's girlfriend who became a preacher and got crucified. But if that's all he did and all he was, why should we give a flying fuck?

Very little is certain about stuff that happened hundreds of years ago, much less thousands of years. But one thing is for sure - nobody is the son of a god, nor is anyone the messenger of any gods. Because there are no gods. The very idea is beyond laughable, and cannot withstand an instant's logical analysis. For any god concept that is worthy of the name, the actual existence of such an entity other than as fiction is impossible. Just as superheros exist only in fiction, so it is with gods. They are inventions that can only exist in the realm of narrative, where physical law and the rules of logic need not apply.

In short, the question 'Did Mohammed actually exist?' (or 'Did Jesus actually exist?') is only superficially a reasonable question to ask; When examined carefully, we find that the question itself is so vague as to eliminate the possibility of an answer - and any attempt to frame a more precise vrsion of the question, which includes a specific description of what is meant by 'Mohammed' (or 'Jesus') in this context, leads either to a banal query whose answer is obviously yes - You need only to consult a phone book to show that very large numbers of Mohammeds exist; or to a set of supernatural attributes that can be ruled out as existing, by the simple fact that they are neither evidenced nor possible.
Click to expand...

Yea that's pretty much it. If you're still caught up in Christianity or Islam having any possible validity, these questions matter.

Realistically, even if either existed, their own significance is irrelevant. The fact that in the pre-scientific era existential frameworks were a statistical certainty is what's relevant. If it wasn't Jesus or Mohammed, it would have been some other random guy at the beginning of one of the huge number of cults existing during the Roman through Medieval eras.

To the scientific mind religion is an entirely anthropological phenomena that can easily be explained by what we know about developments through history, and anything resembling the supernatural is nothing but popular mythology.
 
J842P said:
bilby said:
The question is nonsensical.

There are millions of people called Mohammed, and millions called Jesus. So in that respect, there's no question that Jesus existed (and still exists), as did (and does) Mohammed.

Of course, simply having the name is not what the question is about. But when you start to look at what the question IS about, it all gets very woolly, very fast.

It's unremarkable if there was someone by those names (or similar names; or totally dissimilar names) whose biographies roughly coincide with the non-supernatural claims of their followers (approximate dates and places of birth and death; details of family and friends; life events with no supernatural overtones).

Likely thousands of people could approximately fit the frame as an historical Jesus or an historical Mohammed, if we allow such a loose definition. But to allow such a thing is to miss the point - Nobody cares. The ONLY reason to care is because of the SUPERNATURAL claims made of these characters. And there is exactly ZERO reliable evidence for ANY supernatural claims, both by there two alleged characters and by anybody else, living, dead or undead.

Perhaps there is (or once was) a newspaper reporter called Clark Kent. But unless he could leap tall buildings in a single bound, who gives a rat's arse?

Perhaps there once was a bastard son of a carpenter's girlfriend who became a preacher and got crucified. But if that's all he did and all he was, why should we give a flying fuck?

Very little is certain about stuff that happened hundreds of years ago, much less thousands of years. But one thing is for sure - nobody is the son of a god, nor is anyone the messenger of any gods. Because there are no gods. The very idea is beyond laughable, and cannot withstand an instant's logical analysis. For any god concept that is worthy of the name, the actual existence of such an entity other than as fiction is impossible. Just as superheros exist only in fiction, so it is with gods. They are inventions that can only exist in the realm of narrative, where physical law and the rules of logic need not apply.

In short, the question 'Did Mohammed actually exist?' (or 'Did Jesus actually exist?') is only superficially a reasonable question to ask; When examined carefully, we find that the question itself is so vague as to eliminate the possibility of an answer - and any attempt to frame a more precise vrsion of the question, which includes a specific description of what is meant by 'Mohammed' (or 'Jesus') in this context, leads either to a banal query whose answer is obviously yes - You need only to consult a phone book to show that very large numbers of Mohammeds exist; or to a set of supernatural attributes that can be ruled out as existing, by the simple fact that they are neither evidenced nor possible.
Click to expand...

Well, I would disagree. Whoever is at the root of the Jesus story only becomes important because of things his followers did a couple hundred years after his death, based on the supernatural claims. Muhammed was much more directly impactful during his own time. He conquered the whole of Arabia, uniting the various Arab tribes, erased the old gods, and many of the old ways, replacing them with a Abrahamic-inspired faith. He did that himself, while Jesus was probably just one of many doomsday preachers from some backwater region of the Roman Empire who probably drew the ire of the local priests and was executed.
Click to expand...

Sure, Mo is an important historical figure - but the question remains 'who cares?', until we can establish that he was an actual prophet. Hirohito existed, and was an important person in Japanese history, but that tells us nothing about his godhood - lots of people thought he was a god, but he wasn't, not least because nobody is.

If Mo or J are just guys who led cults (or armies), no matter how successful they were, then from a theological perspective, who cares?

(Almost) none of the 'historical Mo' and/or 'historical J' fanboys are in it because of a deep interest in the details Middle Eastern and Arabian early history. They only care because of the supernatural claims - claims that they mistakenly believe are supported by the existence of someone who might fit some of the less remarkable biography of their idol.

Proof of Clark Kent is not evidence for Superman.
 
bilby said:
J842P said:
Well, I would disagree. Whoever is at the root of the Jesus story only becomes important because of things his followers did a couple hundred years after his death, based on the supernatural claims. Muhammed was much more directly impactful during his own time. He conquered the whole of Arabia, uniting the various Arab tribes, erased the old gods, and many of the old ways, replacing them with a Abrahamic-inspired faith. He did that himself, while Jesus was probably just one of many doomsday preachers from some backwater region of the Roman Empire who probably drew the ire of the local priests and was executed.
Click to expand...

Sure, Mo is an important historical figure - but the question remains 'who cares?', until we can establish that he was an actual prophet. Hirohito existed, and was an important person in Japanese history, but that tells us nothing about his godhood - lots of people thought he was a god, but he wasn't, not least because nobody is.

If Mo or J are just guys who led cults (or armies), no matter how successful they were, then from a theological perspective, who cares?

(Almost) none of the 'historical Mo' and/or 'historical J' fanboys are in it because of a deep interest in the details Middle Eastern and Arabian early history. They only care because of the supernatural claims - claims that they mistakenly believe are supported by the existence of someone who might fit some of the less remarkable biography of their idol.

Proof of Clark Kent is not evidence for Superman.
Click to expand...

Meh, that sword cuts both ways. You might not care, but most of the people fervently fighting to reject the historicity of Jesus and Mo are doing so for theistic or atheistic reasons too. Historically, it is still an interesting question - and a relatively important one, given the effects belief in them has had on the world.

Just as a non-religious example: there is no archaeological evidence or first-hand accounts for the  Battle of Cannae. Despite it being one of the most famous tactical defeats in history, not one skeleton, weapon, or bit of armor has been found that has been linked to the battle. We think we know when and where it occurred, and that about 60,000 people died there in a day, but only from accounts written decades or centuries after the fact (sounds familiar, seems like documentation was reeaallly slow in the ancient world). There's certainly more evidence for Mohammed existing (maybe Jesus too) than the Battle of Cannae occurring, but there isn't a huge fight over its historicity.

Now you could still say 'who cares' if it actually happened, but plenty of people are still interested in finding out the details of what really happened. Even if the story turns out to be a fabrication, or exaggeration, or amalgamation of other events, finding out why it was spun into such a story is an interesting historical question.
 
beero1000 said:
bilby said:
Sure, Mo is an important historical figure - but the question remains 'who cares?', until we can establish that he was an actual prophet. Hirohito existed, and was an important person in Japanese history, but that tells us nothing about his godhood - lots of people thought he was a god, but he wasn't, not least because nobody is.

If Mo or J are just guys who led cults (or armies), no matter how successful they were, then from a theological perspective, who cares?

(Almost) none of the 'historical Mo' and/or 'historical J' fanboys are in it because of a deep interest in the details Middle Eastern and Arabian early history. They only care because of the supernatural claims - claims that they mistakenly believe are supported by the existence of someone who might fit some of the less remarkable biography of their idol.

Proof of Clark Kent is not evidence for Superman.
Click to expand...

Meh, that sword cuts both ways. You might not care, but most of the people fervently fighting to reject the historicity of Jesus and Mo are doing so for theistic or atheistic reasons too. Historically, it is still an interesting question - and a relatively important one, given the effects belief in them has had on the world.

Just as a non-religious example: there is no archaeological evidence or first-hand accounts for the  Battle of Cannae. Despite it being one of the most famous tactical defeats in history, not one skeleton, weapon, or bit of armor has been found that has been linked to the battle. We think we know when and where it occurred, and that about 60,000 people died there in a day, but only from accounts written decades or centuries after the fact (sounds familiar, seems like documentation was reeaallly slow in the ancient world). There's certainly more evidence for Mohammed existing (maybe Jesus too) than the Battle of Cannae occurring, but there isn't a huge fight over its historicity.

Now you could still say 'who cares' if it actually happened, but plenty of people are still interested in finding out the details of what really happened. Even if the story turns out to be a fabrication, or exaggeration, or amalgamation of other events, finding out why it was spun into such a story is an interesting historical question.
Click to expand...

I guess in a certain sense it's important, if we could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus didn't exist then that completely falsifies a major religion. Problem with that is: we've already falsified Christianity and it's still had less of an impact than it should.

So until evidence is found that pushes the debate to certainty, all we're doing is arguing over whether a guy was alive and gave rise to mythology, or someone made up the mythology sans the guy. To a certain small subset of the population this might be interesting, but for the historical record we already know he wasn't the son of God, so globally we should eventually be able to move on from this question with, or without evidence.

As for the why it was spun into such a story, that we do know. Christianity in it's prominence today is due to Paul the Apostle, who was something akin to a politician advocating for Christianity after Jesus' supposed death. Much of the religion's early theology, I believe, came from him, and Jesus' supposed direct teachings are not completely known. To fabricate a story like that more or less just gives more power to the religion, and if there's any consistency to story-tellers spanning back from the middle ages it's that much of what they recorded was either complete fabrication, if not exaggeration, whether it was religion, mythology, war, disease, you name it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom