Muhammad just an Arabican unicorn?

Submitted by Plato (India), Sep 19, 2011 at 11:49

Amin Riaz, you wrote:

Here is what you wrote to dhimmi no more:

Which "Fact of History" - history is mostly based around unreliable evidence. Unless there is too large a body of evidence ... Plus each unique "HISTORICAL FACT" as you put it is on its own merit........<<

And now you say:

>>Unhistorical is the wrong word (ahistorical then??)- but I know what you mean. It "could" mean he did not exist.<<

You are right. I meant this prophet of yours may not have existed at all. You wrote to dhimmi no more that history is based around unreliable evidence. Is Ibn Ishaq reliable or are the sahi hadit reliable, considering that the stories were collected two or three generations after Muhammad' death?

>> Depends what you believe in really.<<

Fact of history depends of what I believe in?? I believe the unicorn existed and hey presto the unicorn existed! You believe Muhammad existed, so he exists?

>> And in which way you assess the evidence - but most "people" Muslims and non-Muslims scholars tend to believe he existed<<

So what does putting people in inverted commas signify? If the sirat and hadit tell us that Mohammed assassinated his critics whether old men or a mother with nursing children or that he sold women and children into slvery or that he married a tender little girl of six when he was 53 or that he took a fancy for his adopted son's wife and had her divorced and had Allah give him permission to marry her, how are we supposed to assess these "facts"? Since as you claim most "people" whether Muslim or non "tend" to believe he existed do Muslims and non-Muslims also tend to believe these unsavoury facts about your 'al insan al kamil', the perfect human?

>> You can say the same about anyone.<<

Can you the same about Ibn Ishaq, Al Tabari and Imam Bukhari, Muslim, and Dawood? If you can as you seem to imply then that Muhammad is even more of an Arabian unicorn.

New evidence does seem to indicate that Muhammad was indeed an Arabian unicorn. For this read 'The Hidden Origins of Islam", Ohlig and Puin, Prometheus Books."... To put it more sharply, the problem of sources casts doubts on the entire question of Muhammad's historicity: Muhammad is not a historical figure, and his official biography is a product of the age in which it was written....In other words, the first two "Islamic" centuries lie in the shadows of history, and it remains inexplicable how the development of a large Islamic empire could have left behind no witnesses whatsoever, even among the groups from whom we might expect traces, such as the enemies of the Arabs, the many Byzantines known for their literary skills, and output, and the Jews and Christians living under the alleged Islamic authority."

>> Long after we the information age are gone. History will still have the possibility of being wrong. Even if the evidence is stronger.<<

???? These three sentences sound like gobbledygook. What you say is not a very logical unless I have read your meaning wrong. Long after the information is gone, about Muhammad for instance, how can anyone claim he ever existed? As you have pointed out the possibility of being wrong exists.

For Muslims even when the information is fresh in people's minds the holocaust does not seem to have happened but insist on the existence of Muhammed on very tenuous evidence at best.

>> If you are going all logical on me .... put in the extra shift. I started on computation, logic and philosophy pretty early.<<

Hmm. I think you started on these things a bit too early which is why you have come up with the three sentences above which simply don't hang together. You have heard of shooting oneself in the leg?

Regards

Plato

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".