Order the new revised and expanded version of Did Muhammad Exist?here.
Comments
mortimersays
Amusing cartoon that sums up the response to real scholarship by BRIBED, PAID-OFF universities that received TRAIN-LOADS of cash from rich Arab countries in order to convince them to promote Islam.
The academic critique of Islamic historiography is in fact going on in academia, but it is a very hush-hush matter. We hear not a peep from those in academe in Germany especially, where the largest cache of early Koranic texts exist on microfilms taken before the end of WWII.
These microfilms are said to contain the most devastating refutation of the Standard Islamic Narrative (SIN), since these early Koranic texts show much human intervention … as do most of the earliest Koranic manuscripts. If the Koranic text is unreliable, if there is no certified early Koranic text, then no one may say that the Koran was continuously edited and changed, thus defeating the propaganda that the Koran is an eternal, unchanged text. That alone shows Muslims that Islam is false.
mortimersays
correction: then no one may DENY that the Koran was continuously edited and changed, thus defeating the propaganda (of an) eternal text
gravenimagesays
What do the earliest historical records tell us about Muhammad (if anything)?
…………..
Hilarious cartoon!
Don McKellarsays
The Koran was created as a tool to bind an expanding empire of violent conquest. They picked the Bible as it was the text of the most popular religion in the growing empire as the basis, then invented a new lead character, and changed whatever they thought was in their best interests. And they originally combined it with the other popular religion revolving around the Moon God. And crucially, they fashioned the new “holy book” to appeal to two groups: desperate young men without aim or purpose in life, and wealthy old scum who wished to buy their way out of or into anything.
It has been a remarkably successful snow job. Just like the work of Karl Marx and pal. Which — really no surprise — often walk hand in hand by the conmen pushing either.
mortimersays
Robert Spencer poses an important question: “What do the earliest historical records tell us about Muhammad (if anything)?”
The earliest historical records about Mohammed are lost or destroyed … or so we are told by later records.
Ibn Ishaq’s Sira is not considered to be real history by modern scholars and most Muslims now dislike using it, nevertheless, it contains the only chronology of the life of Mohammed, and because it doesn’t know about pre-Islamic leap months, it is considered unreliable as chronology. The dates are likely guesses or made up.
Elisabeth Friissays
I think I read somewhere in the Quran, that Allah complains that when Mohammad bought some religious scriptures from the Jews in Mecca, they sold him bad scriptures.
Discover more from
Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.
mortimer says
Amusing cartoon that sums up the response to real scholarship by BRIBED, PAID-OFF universities that received TRAIN-LOADS of cash from rich Arab countries in order to convince them to promote Islam.
The academic critique of Islamic historiography is in fact going on in academia, but it is a very hush-hush matter. We hear not a peep from those in academe in Germany especially, where the largest cache of early Koranic texts exist on microfilms taken before the end of WWII.
These microfilms are said to contain the most devastating refutation of the Standard Islamic Narrative (SIN), since these early Koranic texts show much human intervention … as do most of the earliest Koranic manuscripts. If the Koranic text is unreliable, if there is no certified early Koranic text, then no one may say that the Koran was continuously edited and changed, thus defeating the propaganda that the Koran is an eternal, unchanged text. That alone shows Muslims that Islam is false.
mortimer says
correction: then no one may DENY that the Koran was continuously edited and changed, thus defeating the propaganda (of an) eternal text
gravenimage says
What do the earliest historical records tell us about Muhammad (if anything)?
…………..
Hilarious cartoon!
Don McKellar says
The Koran was created as a tool to bind an expanding empire of violent conquest. They picked the Bible as it was the text of the most popular religion in the growing empire as the basis, then invented a new lead character, and changed whatever they thought was in their best interests. And they originally combined it with the other popular religion revolving around the Moon God. And crucially, they fashioned the new “holy book” to appeal to two groups: desperate young men without aim or purpose in life, and wealthy old scum who wished to buy their way out of or into anything.
It has been a remarkably successful snow job. Just like the work of Karl Marx and pal. Which — really no surprise — often walk hand in hand by the conmen pushing either.
mortimer says
Robert Spencer poses an important question: “What do the earliest historical records tell us about Muhammad (if anything)?”
The earliest historical records about Mohammed are lost or destroyed … or so we are told by later records.
Ibn Ishaq’s Sira is not considered to be real history by modern scholars and most Muslims now dislike using it, nevertheless, it contains the only chronology of the life of Mohammed, and because it doesn’t know about pre-Islamic leap months, it is considered unreliable as chronology. The dates are likely guesses or made up.
Elisabeth Friis says
I think I read somewhere in the Quran, that Allah complains that when Mohammad bought some religious scriptures from the Jews in Mecca, they sold him bad scriptures.