did they actually meet Muhammad or are they saying something like "these heathen arabs pray to a false god they call Mahomet"
I think it’s pretty much the consensus that pre-7th century the name ‘Muhammad’ (Mhmt just due to Arabic not having vowels at this point) was explicitly and mostly used for Jesus. There are Yemeni rock inscriptions where there are prayers to Christ, and they call him ‘Mhmt’. The ‘prophet’ in the Quran (who is only addressed as Muhammad four times) could also easily fit as Jesus if you read it in a certain way, and you can even interpret the Quran to be Orthodox in its Christology (without vowels, it literally says that Jesus and Allah are the only two to be worshiped in 9:31). Although I wouldn’t doubt that it’s possible that eventually someone came along and took that title for himself, eventually turning proto-Islam into what it is today. The entire hadith corpus is totally fabricated though, it’s ridiculous.
There is a point to be made here, like how the name "Arthur" is totally absent from Brythonic sources until all of a sudden it starts appearing in Welsh genealogies in the 6th-7th centuries
Mahomet who was he? Sucked on the tongue of boys, married a 6 yr old girl, a Terrorist with a perverted Cruelty to animals. The Quran or Koran and Sunnah is said to be Mahomet's degenerate way of life, on which Islamic law (Sharia) is based.
I think it’s pretty much the consensus that pre-7th century the name ‘Muhammad’ (Mhmt just due to Arabic not having vowels at this point) was explicitly and mostly used for Jesus. There are Yemeni rock inscriptions where there are prayers to Christ, and they call him ‘Mhmt’. The ‘prophet’ in the Quran (who is only addressed as Muhammad four times) could also easily fit as Jesus if you read it in a certain way, and you can even interpret the Quran to be Orthodox in its Christology (without vowels, it literally says that Jesus and Allah are the only two to be worshiped in 9:31). Although I wouldn’t doubt that it’s possible that eventually someone came along and took that title for himself, eventually turning proto-Islam into what it is today. The entire hadith corpus is totally fabricated though, it’s ridiculous.
Not the guy you replied to, but as far as I'm aware, the earliest hadiths are dated to the 900s AD, 300 years after Muhammad died, which makes their veracity as "sayings of Muhammad" spurious, much the same way people don't actually think Confucius said any of those "Confucius say:" things on fortune cookies
not muslim but thats when the hadiths were standardized. the earliest surviving recorded hadiths were from about 700 ad, which isnt that long after muhammad died. islam is still fake though.
i dont understand why autists zero in on muhammad as fictional when he left more of a historical footprint as a biographical figure than the emperor augustus.
>the earliest surviving recorded hadiths were from about 700 ad
you're telling me the hadiths predate the quran by 80 years? lmao
>i dont understand why autists zero in on muhammad as fictional when he left more of a historical footprint as a biographical figure than the emperor augustus.
see the issue is that people start getting suspicious when identical texts from a different and earlier religious tradition appear with some of the names swapped out like somebody was copying homework
huge chunks of the quran are stolen verbatim from Christian psalters, including, suspiciously, the MHMT title that is ascribed very explicitly to Jesus Christ
it's a little like watching every Star Wars except Episode III and then claiming Darth Sidious and Emperor Palpatine are different people
>you're telling me the hadiths predate the quran by 80 years? lmao
What? That's nonsense. The quran was revealed during the prophet's time in the early 600s
>the MHMT title that is ascribed very explicitly to Jesus Christ
More nonsense. Muhammad is a given name, not some title.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>The quran was revealed during the prophet's time in the early 600s
The Quran that we have today was invented and written down in 650AD.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Codified, not invented
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Those were all burnt by Uthman, the earliest copies of the Quran date no later than the 780s.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Muhammad is a given name, not some title.
Muhammad is the arabized version of a title that became a name, much the same how Stephen King is named King despite not being a King, which is the modern English rendition of Old English "Cyning" (pronounced similarly to German könig)
It's funny you're using this argument because Muslims ironically claim that the name Muhammad appears in the Old Testament by appealing to the hebrew title mhmt previously mentioned.
>he thinks augustus was real
he was a mythical "civilization giving" god-king
probably a council of elders and military leaders ruled the reign and made up this "emperor" , a sort of IRL deified man, to appease the masses
Augustus was real, Julius Caesar was fake, same deal with Odin, it was just some guy making shit up to convince other folks to follow him, Odin wasn't even part of Germanic religion until like 250 AD when some warlord or shaman or something went "uh actually I'm the secret cunning god who was running things behind the scenes all along!" and nordoids, being stupid monkeys, fell for it
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Really? Proof?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Proof for Odin for that I mean
1. the principal deities of the Germanic peoples have obvious Indo-European cognates and correlates within the standard IE religious system; Thor, Tyr, Freyja, etc, whereas Odin does not have a divine archetype correlate, because his character is a foreign intrusion, and his name derives from the word for madness, from which is derived the dual concepts of drunkenness and berserkers in the Germanic languages (though there are fringe theories that the German version of Odin's name - Votan/Wotan - is derived from the common Greek name Photinus, and all that stuff about madness is backformation)
2. no mention of the name Odin or an equivalent (Uthinn, Woden, Wotan, etc) appears before the 5th century AD, and the few appearances it does have do not correspond to gods, but to kings, as the stamps of coins or in the genealogies of men attest. the earliest reference to Odin as a god occurs in the 7th century, among the English and Lombards as Woden, and the earliest reference amongst the Norse or Danes is not found until the end of the 8th century or beginning of the 9th century when the vikings first started raiding Christian communities in the North Sea
>They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of Allah, and (they take as their Lord) Christ the son of Mary; yet they were commanded to worship but One Allah: there is no god but He. Praise and glory to Him: (Far is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him). [9:31]
> yet they were commanded to worship but One Allah: there is no god but He
Yes it does. There are no commas or parantheses in the original text. ‘Christ’ is included in the set of people that the israelites have taken lords besides.
On the other hand, they also insist that Isa was a muslim, and not a prophet, or a god. Or something. Seems pretty weird to be a muslim without a qibla, but okay
For the record I don't personally subscribe to Muhammad mythicism, but I think it's significant that over the past decade, the paucity of contemporary evidence has led to respectable scholars seriously considering the possibility that Muhammad is a fictitious or quasi-fictitious character, while at the same time the tremendous wealth of primary sources for the gospel narrative has resulted in the cause of Jesus mythicism to become a complete disgrace.
If anything recent scholarship has moved away from Muhammad mythicism with the work on contemporaneous non-Greek Christian sources that mention Muhammad and the extremely early dating of multiple Quran manuscripts.
It's a pretty popular opinion, it seems like the standard opinion among those who doubt the existence of Jesus
Within scholarship it's far less of a respectable opinion though
The revisionist school had it's day but within the last two decades it's practically lost it's standing
Pedohammad was too pathetic of a man to be fictional. Nobody would create such a despicable and unimpressive petty warlord hoping to jumpstart a religion.
>The first sure contemporary information that we get about the movements of the west Arabian armies comes from a chronicle that would seem, from the precision of its report, to depend on a local source. It tells us that in the year 945 of the Greeks (ad 634), “on Friday 4 February, at the ninth hour” a Byzantine force engaged “the Arabs of Muhammad” in Palestine, twelve miles east of Gaza. Nothing is said about the course of the confrontation, but it is simply noted that “the Byzantines fled, leaving behind their patrician,”
No it's laughable because you literally have 7th century christian sources seething at Muhammad. There are better ways to argue against islam
did they actually meet Muhammad or are they saying something like "these heathen arabs pray to a false god they call Mahomet"
There is a point to be made here, like how the name "Arthur" is totally absent from Brythonic sources until all of a sudden it starts appearing in Welsh genealogies in the 6th-7th centuries
thats because brits were ooga boogas and kept poor records till the welsh brought civilization to the land
>[...] 7th century christian sources seething at Muhammad.
NO SUCH THING.
Mahomet who was he? Sucked on the tongue of boys, married a 6 yr old girl, a Terrorist with a perverted Cruelty to animals. The Quran or Koran and Sunnah is said to be Mahomet's degenerate way of life, on which Islamic law (Sharia) is based.
I think it’s pretty much the consensus that pre-7th century the name ‘Muhammad’ (Mhmt just due to Arabic not having vowels at this point) was explicitly and mostly used for Jesus. There are Yemeni rock inscriptions where there are prayers to Christ, and they call him ‘Mhmt’. The ‘prophet’ in the Quran (who is only addressed as Muhammad four times) could also easily fit as Jesus if you read it in a certain way, and you can even interpret the Quran to be Orthodox in its Christology (without vowels, it literally says that Jesus and Allah are the only two to be worshiped in 9:31). Although I wouldn’t doubt that it’s possible that eventually someone came along and took that title for himself, eventually turning proto-Islam into what it is today. The entire hadith corpus is totally fabricated though, it’s ridiculous.
>The entire hadith corpus is totally fabricated though, it’s ridiculous.
Elaborate?
Not the guy you replied to, but as far as I'm aware, the earliest hadiths are dated to the 900s AD, 300 years after Muhammad died, which makes their veracity as "sayings of Muhammad" spurious, much the same way people don't actually think Confucius said any of those "Confucius say:" things on fortune cookies
not muslim but thats when the hadiths were standardized. the earliest surviving recorded hadiths were from about 700 ad, which isnt that long after muhammad died. islam is still fake though.
i dont understand why autists zero in on muhammad as fictional when he left more of a historical footprint as a biographical figure than the emperor augustus.
>the earliest surviving recorded hadiths were from about 700 ad
you're telling me the hadiths predate the quran by 80 years? lmao
>i dont understand why autists zero in on muhammad as fictional when he left more of a historical footprint as a biographical figure than the emperor augustus.
see the issue is that people start getting suspicious when identical texts from a different and earlier religious tradition appear with some of the names swapped out like somebody was copying homework
huge chunks of the quran are stolen verbatim from Christian psalters, including, suspiciously, the MHMT title that is ascribed very explicitly to Jesus Christ
it's a little like watching every Star Wars except Episode III and then claiming Darth Sidious and Emperor Palpatine are different people
>you're telling me the hadiths predate the quran by 80 years? lmao
What? That's nonsense. The quran was revealed during the prophet's time in the early 600s
>the MHMT title that is ascribed very explicitly to Jesus Christ
More nonsense. Muhammad is a given name, not some title.
>The quran was revealed during the prophet's time in the early 600s
The Quran that we have today was invented and written down in 650AD.
Codified, not invented
Those were all burnt by Uthman, the earliest copies of the Quran date no later than the 780s.
>Muhammad is a given name, not some title.
Muhammad is the arabized version of a title that became a name, much the same how Stephen King is named King despite not being a King, which is the modern English rendition of Old English "Cyning" (pronounced similarly to German könig)
It's funny you're using this argument because Muslims ironically claim that the name Muhammad appears in the Old Testament by appealing to the hebrew title mhmt previously mentioned.
>he thinks augustus was real
he was a mythical "civilization giving" god-king
probably a council of elders and military leaders ruled the reign and made up this "emperor" , a sort of IRL deified man, to appease the masses
Augustus was real, Julius Caesar was fake, same deal with Odin, it was just some guy making shit up to convince other folks to follow him, Odin wasn't even part of Germanic religion until like 250 AD when some warlord or shaman or something went "uh actually I'm the secret cunning god who was running things behind the scenes all along!" and nordoids, being stupid monkeys, fell for it
Really? Proof?
1. the principal deities of the Germanic peoples have obvious Indo-European cognates and correlates within the standard IE religious system; Thor, Tyr, Freyja, etc, whereas Odin does not have a divine archetype correlate, because his character is a foreign intrusion, and his name derives from the word for madness, from which is derived the dual concepts of drunkenness and berserkers in the Germanic languages (though there are fringe theories that the German version of Odin's name - Votan/Wotan - is derived from the common Greek name Photinus, and all that stuff about madness is backformation)
2. no mention of the name Odin or an equivalent (Uthinn, Woden, Wotan, etc) appears before the 5th century AD, and the few appearances it does have do not correspond to gods, but to kings, as the stamps of coins or in the genealogies of men attest. the earliest reference to Odin as a god occurs in the 7th century, among the English and Lombards as Woden, and the earliest reference amongst the Norse or Danes is not found until the end of the 8th century or beginning of the 9th century when the vikings first started raiding Christian communities in the North Sea
Proof for Odin for that I mean
>They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of Allah, and (they take as their Lord) Christ the son of Mary; yet they were commanded to worship but One Allah: there is no god but He. Praise and glory to Him: (Far is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him). [9:31]
> yet they were commanded to worship but One Allah: there is no god but He
>(they take as their Lord)
This isn’t in the Quran.
The verse goes like this, literally,
>They have taken their rabbis and their monks as lords apart from God and the Messiah the Son of Mary
As in, they took their rabbis and monks as lords besides Allah and Christ, Allah and Christ are supposed to be the true Lords.
>The verse goes like this, literally,
No, it does not.
Yes it does. There are no commas or parantheses in the original text. ‘Christ’ is included in the set of people that the israelites have taken lords besides.
On the other hand, they also insist that Isa was a muslim, and not a prophet, or a god. Or something. Seems pretty weird to be a muslim without a qibla, but okay
I have never spoken to anyone who actually says this, most Muslims I've talked to say something to the effect of
>"Christ was a prophet and the true sect of Allah to follow until the last prophet, Muhammad"
>they also insist that Isa was a muslim, and not a prophet
Who? No Muslim claims Isa wasn't a prophet.
For the record I don't personally subscribe to Muhammad mythicism, but I think it's significant that over the past decade, the paucity of contemporary evidence has led to respectable scholars seriously considering the possibility that Muhammad is a fictitious or quasi-fictitious character, while at the same time the tremendous wealth of primary sources for the gospel narrative has resulted in the cause of Jesus mythicism to become a complete disgrace.
Who thinks Muhammad mythicism is plausible?
If anything recent scholarship has moved away from Muhammad mythicism with the work on contemporaneous non-Greek Christian sources that mention Muhammad and the extremely early dating of multiple Quran manuscripts.
It's a pretty popular opinion, it seems like the standard opinion among those who doubt the existence of Jesus
Within scholarship it's far less of a respectable opinion though
The revisionist school had it's day but within the last two decades it's practically lost it's standing
Pedohammad was too pathetic of a man to be fictional. Nobody would create such a despicable and unimpressive petty warlord hoping to jumpstart a religion.
There's the Satanic verses
Also the parts about Aisha in the 24th chapter of the Quran
>The first sure contemporary information that we get about the movements of the west Arabian armies comes from a chronicle that would seem, from the precision of its report, to depend on a local source. It tells us that in the year 945 of the Greeks (ad 634), “on Friday 4 February, at the ninth hour” a Byzantine force engaged “the Arabs of Muhammad” in Palestine, twelve miles east of Gaza. Nothing is said about the course of the confrontation, but it is simply noted that “the Byzantines fled, leaving behind their patrician,”