Public secrets , Islamic "debates" and Mahomet's corpse in Medina

Submitted by Ianus (Poland), May 18, 2012 at 05:02

BernardZ wrote :

" I have known of this controversy for quite some time, so I doubt it is secret."

No, it isn't secret. Yet its far-reaching implications are as secret and ununderstandable to the Moslem public as if no controversy had ever arisen.

"Furthermore, Islamic writers have also debated these questions at length."

When "Islamic scholars" start "debating" anything, taking it too seriously wouldn't be advisable, because the conclusions "Islamic scholars" are inevitably going to arrive at are known a priori-long before their "debate" starts ... "Islam is great","The Mother of the Book was written by Allah and is identical with the last Cairo edition of the Quran ","Science proves how right and great the Quran is" , "Moslems are superior to kafirs" ... ... and all the other standard Islamic BS.

"I do not see the secret. Maybe a better way of describing it, is that the discussion has been brought more into the mainstream world."

Whatever "the mainstream world" may mean, the discussion is neither free nor fair when a single Moslem is involved. How do you imagine a (mainstream) Moslem will face the fact that his Quran has been grossly altered with, altered, is therefore man-made and in short is not worth all the paper or parchment upon which all its editions have been inscribed or printed ?

"Robert Spencer a man with a mission who publicly claims some extreme views."

Robert Spencer is an outstanding scholar I deeply respect and all the questions he asks are legitimate and challenging no matter you agree with his answers or not.

As to "extreme views" the only ones I am aware of are those lacking rational background. Alas, in our perverted world it is usually the so called 'mainstream media' that are the breeding ground for extreme views and not honest scholars like Robert Spencer.

" Overall there is very little evidence for the historical Muhammad. Here is a discussion in the Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad "

I disagree with hat they write. The final word on what has had a material historical existence and what hasn't is provided by archaeology. Must I remind you how many concrete places and events with inevitable archaeological remains are named in the traditional account of Mahomet's life? Just think of whose body is resting in the Green Mosque in Medina?

Now the problem is that Saudi Arabia is the most ignorant and hostile place to archaeology and archaeologists. What "archaeologists" can a culture produce which considers anything before 622 A.D. "jakhilya" - "the age of ignorance and stupidity"?

The Saudis bulldoze archaeological sites and destroy artefacts, ancient inscriptions and effigies as a matter of principle. In Mecca and Medina - the stage upon which Mahomet played his bloody comedy of Islam and prophethood - "more than 90 per cent of the archaeological treasures of the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, experts estimate, have been demolished to make way for hotels, apartment blocks and parking facilities." They do it not only to "purify" the birthplace of Islam of all traces of idololatry ( hotels , apartment blocks and parking facilities are no idolatry of course ,are they? ;) and anger the "idolatric" shi'a but also to get rid of inconvenient evidence and thus doubts and questions such evidence unavoidably gives rise to.

---

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".