Huh?

Submitted by Susan (United States), May 30, 2012 at 13:43

You exhibit an arrogant certitude with trenchant undertones in your assertion that proving the existence of Muhammad is 'a piece of cake' compared to proving the existence of Jesus. I could argue that the New Testament is far more detailed and rational than the Qur'an and is accepted as a historical record by many. But I won't argue that because it really doesn't matter. The historical evidence for Muhammed's existence is scarce, if not non-existent. The 'revelations' in the Qur'an are a combination of evil fantasies, perpetual war, special sexual privileges for the wicked 'prophet', and incomprehensible hogwash. A man as malevolent, sexually insatiable, perverted, and megalomaniacal as Muhammad is depicted in the Qur'an and hadiths probably did exist, but he certainly was not a prophet of God, just a ... warlord. It truly amazes me that after almost 1400 years, Muslims are still paralyzed by the fear and terror engendered by Islam. If there is any 'peace' even remotely associated with this ... religion, I have yet to find it.

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".