January 8, for Sangam Talks. Get the book The Truth About Muhammadhere.
Comments
Infidelsays
Given what you wrote in the book ‘Did Muhammad exist’, shouldn’t that refute a lot of the material in ‘The truth about Muhammad’? Maybe you should have focused the discussion on the former book instead of the latter
Infidelsays
55:30 Watching the video, looks like Koenraad Elst asked the very question I had in mind
1:00:00 The Ismaili shi’a were, before the Agha Khan, the Fatimid caliphate in North Africa, and they were anything but peaceful. The only reason the Agha Khan is peaceful is that he controlled/controls no territory
The ending was rather abrupt: no conclusion from the hostess at the end
gravenimagesays
I think it is apt to both study what Islam claims about the “Prophet” Muhammad *and* investigate Muhammad’s historicity. The idea that one must limit oneself in what may be investigated is mistaken.
gregbeethamsays
As Robert outlined in the video, ‘The Truth About Muhammad’ covers what Muslims believe or are taught to believe. Traditional Islam is important for us from the standpoint of what Muslims believe; it doesn’t infer that what they believe has any historical value.
The other book ‘Did Muhammad Exist’ delves into the historical veracity of Muhammad and all the rest of the concoction, the Hadiths and the Sira etc. and establishes that he was a work of fiction used to create the legendary figure of Muhammad in the Koran.
Egorsays
Unfortunately, Robert, the more you acknowledge the Ahadeeth as source, the more you give credence to the actual existence of somebody called Muhammad when it is becoming clear to many that Mecca did not exist in the 6th and 7th Centuries and as a consequence neither did Muhammad as portrayed in the narrative. The best way to defeat Islam is to show that the narrative is completely false rather than focussing on whether Muhammad was a nice guy or not. The argument and foicus should be – if Mecca did not exist then nor did Muhammad. As a consequence of that who actually wrote the Quran and the Ahadeeth. I submit the following as far as the Ahadeeth are concerned.
So who are the canonised folk who presented the narrative and where were they born and when? I submit the following for discussion
Ibn Hisham – Born (?) Basrah, Iraq – (1800 kms from Mecca) Died – Fustat Egypt 833 CE
Al Waqidi – Born 747 CE in Medina Died 823 CE
Al Bukhari – Born in Bukhari Born 810 CE in Bukhara, Uzbekistan – (4200 kms from Mecca) Died 870 CE . In Xo’ja Ismoil, Ubekistan.
Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj – Born (?) Nayshabur, Iran – (3200kms from Mecca) Died 875 CE Nayshabur, Iran.
Al Timidhi – Born 824 CE Termez Uzbekistan – (4428 Kms from Mecca) Died 884 CE Termez Uzbekistan
Ibn Mayah – Born 824 CE Qazvin, Iran – (2516kms from Mecca) Died 887 CE Qazvin, Iran
Abu Dowad – Born 817 CE Sistan East Iran – (2200 kms from Mecca) Died 889 CE Basra, Iraq
An Nasai – Born 829 CE Nisa, Turkmenistan – (2160kms from Mecca) Died 915 CE Mecca ,Saudi Arabia (Hello Mecca gets a mention for the first time in the 10th Century – outside of the three phantoms you raised)
Al Tabari – Born 839 CE Amol, Iran – (2777 Kms from Mecca) Died 923 CE Baghdad Iraq.
It is interesting that Al-Tabari died in Baghdad (1783 Kms from Mecca) as that is probably where all these Hadiths were constructed. Everything to do with the construction of the Hadiths appears to come from people who were born in East Iran, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan. Sorry Muslims, the Hejaz hardly gets a look in . So what you are trying to tell me is that all these people who recited these Hadiths ie statements made by the Prophet and his companions and trekked 1000s of Kms to let the canonised few write them down. It tends to remind me of salmon swimming up stream, breeding and then dying. You have got to be questioning all of this. So when I say the Ahadeeth are constructed stories I am not only questioning the space in time bit also, now, in distance.
We then have the question of the number of hadiths. I believe the story is that Al-Bukhari inherited 600,000 or so hadiths and selected 7339 for publication. He deemed the rest too weak. Based on what experience? So if we assume Mecca did exist and one person remembered one hadith, then Ibn Hisham, and his predecessor, would have needed 600,000 people to memorise. I would really like to see what was in those other 592, 661 hadiths if they were true.
The fairy tale continues with the Abbasids. We are told that they form their caliphate out of Mecca. The third (I would argue second) caliphate named after Muhammad’s uncle Al Bassa. So if it was founded in Mecca, why wasn’t Mecca it’s capital? I mean it was such a large and well known place. Instead we see its capital, for five hundred years, being in Baghdad. I would argue that was where the whole narrative emanated from and all those in the know, who worked out of there, used the Umayyads as the link between fact and folk lore.
So if you show the Ahadeeth are a construct, as many Muslims already believe they are, then it is a simple one way street to questioning the authenticity of the Quran. Mecca is given to us a large trading centre. We are led to believe caravans were going and coming all the time. Even you state, Robert, that over 13 years Muhammad was only able to convert 150 people to Islam. This gives one the impression that it was a small part of the total population. I am readily informed that Jeddah another non existent place in the 6th and 7th Centuries now has a population of 150,000 and its water is supplied through a desalination plant powered by solar. So where did these people get their water back in the day? The same goes for Mecca. A desert wadi, with next to no vegetation or water is going to be a centre for a large trading centre. My Saudi friends tell me the only green in the Hejaz is found in the south and that is seasonal. No water. No food production. No Mecca. No Muhammad.
gravenimagesays
Egor, pious Muslims believe what the Hadiths say. I think that demanding that we ignore that is mistaken. Acknowledging what the Hadith say does *not* mean that civilized people have to themselves accept this as factual.
Discover more from
Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.
Infidel says
Given what you wrote in the book ‘Did Muhammad exist’, shouldn’t that refute a lot of the material in ‘The truth about Muhammad’? Maybe you should have focused the discussion on the former book instead of the latter
Infidel says
55:30 Watching the video, looks like Koenraad Elst asked the very question I had in mind
1:00:00 The Ismaili shi’a were, before the Agha Khan, the Fatimid caliphate in North Africa, and they were anything but peaceful. The only reason the Agha Khan is peaceful is that he controlled/controls no territory
The ending was rather abrupt: no conclusion from the hostess at the end
gravenimage says
I think it is apt to both study what Islam claims about the “Prophet” Muhammad *and* investigate Muhammad’s historicity. The idea that one must limit oneself in what may be investigated is mistaken.
gregbeetham says
As Robert outlined in the video, ‘The Truth About Muhammad’ covers what Muslims believe or are taught to believe. Traditional Islam is important for us from the standpoint of what Muslims believe; it doesn’t infer that what they believe has any historical value.
The other book ‘Did Muhammad Exist’ delves into the historical veracity of Muhammad and all the rest of the concoction, the Hadiths and the Sira etc. and establishes that he was a work of fiction used to create the legendary figure of Muhammad in the Koran.
Egor says
Unfortunately, Robert, the more you acknowledge the Ahadeeth as source, the more you give credence to the actual existence of somebody called Muhammad when it is becoming clear to many that Mecca did not exist in the 6th and 7th Centuries and as a consequence neither did Muhammad as portrayed in the narrative. The best way to defeat Islam is to show that the narrative is completely false rather than focussing on whether Muhammad was a nice guy or not. The argument and foicus should be – if Mecca did not exist then nor did Muhammad. As a consequence of that who actually wrote the Quran and the Ahadeeth. I submit the following as far as the Ahadeeth are concerned.
So who are the canonised folk who presented the narrative and where were they born and when? I submit the following for discussion
Ibn Hisham – Born (?) Basrah, Iraq – (1800 kms from Mecca) Died – Fustat Egypt 833 CE
Al Waqidi – Born 747 CE in Medina Died 823 CE
Al Bukhari – Born in Bukhari Born 810 CE in Bukhara, Uzbekistan – (4200 kms from Mecca) Died 870 CE . In Xo’ja Ismoil, Ubekistan.
Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj – Born (?) Nayshabur, Iran – (3200kms from Mecca) Died 875 CE Nayshabur, Iran.
Al Timidhi – Born 824 CE Termez Uzbekistan – (4428 Kms from Mecca) Died 884 CE Termez Uzbekistan
Ibn Mayah – Born 824 CE Qazvin, Iran – (2516kms from Mecca) Died 887 CE Qazvin, Iran
Abu Dowad – Born 817 CE Sistan East Iran – (2200 kms from Mecca) Died 889 CE Basra, Iraq
An Nasai – Born 829 CE Nisa, Turkmenistan – (2160kms from Mecca) Died 915 CE Mecca ,Saudi Arabia (Hello Mecca gets a mention for the first time in the 10th Century – outside of the three phantoms you raised)
Al Tabari – Born 839 CE Amol, Iran – (2777 Kms from Mecca) Died 923 CE Baghdad Iraq.
It is interesting that Al-Tabari died in Baghdad (1783 Kms from Mecca) as that is probably where all these Hadiths were constructed. Everything to do with the construction of the Hadiths appears to come from people who were born in East Iran, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan. Sorry Muslims, the Hejaz hardly gets a look in . So what you are trying to tell me is that all these people who recited these Hadiths ie statements made by the Prophet and his companions and trekked 1000s of Kms to let the canonised few write them down. It tends to remind me of salmon swimming up stream, breeding and then dying. You have got to be questioning all of this. So when I say the Ahadeeth are constructed stories I am not only questioning the space in time bit also, now, in distance.
We then have the question of the number of hadiths. I believe the story is that Al-Bukhari inherited 600,000 or so hadiths and selected 7339 for publication. He deemed the rest too weak. Based on what experience? So if we assume Mecca did exist and one person remembered one hadith, then Ibn Hisham, and his predecessor, would have needed 600,000 people to memorise. I would really like to see what was in those other 592, 661 hadiths if they were true.
The fairy tale continues with the Abbasids. We are told that they form their caliphate out of Mecca. The third (I would argue second) caliphate named after Muhammad’s uncle Al Bassa. So if it was founded in Mecca, why wasn’t Mecca it’s capital? I mean it was such a large and well known place. Instead we see its capital, for five hundred years, being in Baghdad. I would argue that was where the whole narrative emanated from and all those in the know, who worked out of there, used the Umayyads as the link between fact and folk lore.
So if you show the Ahadeeth are a construct, as many Muslims already believe they are, then it is a simple one way street to questioning the authenticity of the Quran. Mecca is given to us a large trading centre. We are led to believe caravans were going and coming all the time. Even you state, Robert, that over 13 years Muhammad was only able to convert 150 people to Islam. This gives one the impression that it was a small part of the total population. I am readily informed that Jeddah another non existent place in the 6th and 7th Centuries now has a population of 150,000 and its water is supplied through a desalination plant powered by solar. So where did these people get their water back in the day? The same goes for Mecca. A desert wadi, with next to no vegetation or water is going to be a centre for a large trading centre. My Saudi friends tell me the only green in the Hejaz is found in the south and that is seasonal. No water. No food production. No Mecca. No Muhammad.
gravenimage says
Egor, pious Muslims believe what the Hadiths say. I think that demanding that we ignore that is mistaken. Acknowledging what the Hadith say does *not* mean that civilized people have to themselves accept this as factual.