Doubt about Muhammad's Existence Poses Threat to Islamic Religious Education

WOW will wonders never cease, I tried to prove this a while back,

qantara.de...

Muhammad Sven Kalisch is an Islamic researcher at the University of Münster. He is also the first person in Germany to hold a Chair of Islamic Religion. Kalisch's recent public admission that he is unsure whether the Prophet Muhammad was actually a historical person has got him into hot water. Peter Philipp has the details

"The results were such that it is my conviction that it cannot be proven whether Muhammad actually lived or not," said Kalisch. "I believe that there is no definite answer to this question, although I must admit that I tend more towards the view that he did not exist. However, one must be able to say so and one must be able to have an academic debate about it."

Maybe we should start over.

[edit on 123030p://bTuesday2008 by Stormdancer777]

Maybe we should start over.

why ruin a perfectly good religeon over somthing silly like proof the main proponent lived just take the christian path

rely on blind faith and faulty science and deny everything else

This was brought up in an earlier thread, that is still on this front page:

Did Muhammad Ever Really Live?


I dunno...personally I think it's a silly argument.

reply to post by Stormdancer777

Professor Kalisch is to be commended for his courage. Christian scholars are increasingly being compelled by academic honesty to admit that there is no firm basis for a historical Jesus either. The origins of the three "religions of the book" are all mythical. This thesis in no way abrogates their tremendously powerful spiritual message. True myth is the vehicle of eternal truths as Joseph Campbell, Carl Jung and many other major thinkers have argued.

It's always fun to see how academics and historieans trying to rewrite history by saying the most prominent prophets never lived since they can't find any records of them, or they find inconsistencies and paradoxes that leads them to propose theories that some of the oldest laws and religious scripture are somehow invented as instruments in great conspiracies. For they are partly right. Remember how Mary and Joseph fled to Egypt with little Jesus where they lived like refugees. They never arrived at the cencus mentioned in the gospel, and to further confuse it no such cencus is recorded in secular works of the time. Neither is the reason behind them fleeing refered to in secular history.

I'd just say: Why did Herod wash his hands? And to quote another antichrist, namely Napoleon Bonaparte: History is the lies we have agreed uppon.... Here we have a bunch of testimonies from people living when the prophets lived telling us of their wisdom and deeds, prophecies, laws and how they walked their way.

Well, I really have no stake in this argument. However, to me, it matters little. If he existed, he existed. If he didn't, he didn't.

Christianity comes under the same attack by secularist. They claim, "Well, there is no evidence that such a man ever lived." What exactly would meet their standards of proof?

I often like to bring out a couple of ghosts from the closet when some secularis or ateist comes with these arguments: For what about Mozart? His grave isn't found, and his music is full of mason symbology. Just like Shakespeare. Did he ever even live? If so, post some proof they did. And what about the Greek philosophers. Did they live? Where are their birth and death certificates, explain to me how contemporary historians have mentioned them. Are they but popular myths? And part of a world wide mind control conspiracy???...

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Well, I really have no stake in this argument. However, to me, it matters little. If he existed, he existed. If he didn't, he didn't.

Christianity comes under the same attack by secularist. They claim, "Well, there is no evidence that such a man ever lived." What exactly would meet their standards of proof?

I don't either, I just found it interesting.

No one has ever shown Jesus to be a historical figure through sources which were cited during the time the Bible says he lived either. This has never caused much dismay among Christians, I don't see why Muslims would be different. They'll likely take the same road and use the three D's of religious propaganda: Deny, discredit and disinformation

Deny the obvious, discredit the researcher, circulate disinformation which followers will jump at the chance to believe as long as it reaffirms their position.

When it comes to biblical figures, we should not ask whether they existed but how they existed. Even the most skeptical people must admit that at least some of the people, places, and events that occurred in the Bible or Koran were based on historical realities, even though the scriptures may distort the historical realities with biases, exagerations, and fictional elements.

Similarly, even if many of the people, places, and events are fictitious, it does not necessarily follow that they do not contain at least some grain of trust. Let us assume that the story of David slaying Goliath was a complete fiction in that there was no David, there was no giant named Goliath, and there was no encounter between a young Israelite and a giant Phillistine. This does not mean the story has no grain of truth.

First, the story illustrates that there was conflict between the Israelites and Phillistines in antiquity. Historians will not doubt this truth. Second, the story reveals attitudes and beliefs that were held by the writers and audience that heard the story. We cannot deny that ancient Israelites may have felt that they were "underdogs" in their conflict with the Palestinians, while at the same time feeling their God would help them triump. Finally, the story contains a poetic truth in that it illustrates that the human spirit can conquer adversity through perserverance and faith.

When it comes to Muhammed, he may have well been a fictitious character. This does not mean the writers of the Koran were not working with philosophical, poetic, and even historical truths when crafting the character. The conflicts, events, and dialogues Muhammed has in the Muslim scriptures may very well be based on real conflicts, events and dialogues the writers of the Koran experienced.

reply to post by ANoNyMiKE


When it comes to Jesus, the historical Jesus was a pretty minor figure. He had twelve followers. It should come as no surprise that there would be no historical contemporaneous historical record outside the Christian gosepls (which were not really contemporaneous) of his life.

Muhammed on the other hand was the head of a state, commanded armies, and had control of one of the world's major shrines. One would think that there would be plenty of historical records outside the Koran. I did read though that Christian Monks on Mount Sinai have a treaty that Muhammed made with their monastery. They claim the treaty contains his hand print.

I don't understand how this impacts Islam at all? I mean there's no proof that Jesus existed either, but that doesn't seem to bother Christians..