If Muhammad hadn’t ever really existed then Islam is a terrible hoax played on humankind. By contrast ,is Muhammad really did exist as the founder of Islam then according to the Bible , Isaiah 8:20, he started a false religion of Islamic darkness. Muhammad then was and is a false prophet.
Jesus had foretold and warned about the coming of lying deceptive false prophets as Muhammad , For Jesus declared “Beware of false prophets ,who come to you in sheep’s clothing ,but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.” Matthew 7;15 [N,K.J.V.]
In addition , the Bible further warns that “many false prophets have gone out into the world,” First John 4:1 .
Islam does indeed look exactly like a terrible hoax played on mankind. Whether Mohammed existed or not is a totally different question.
࿗Infidel࿘says
Walter
islam is a hoax on humankind irrespective of whether or not its purported founder existed
somehistorysays
Ot, and it may not involve islime….but I’m guessing it does
“At least 11 people wounded, 6 critically, in a stabbing at a Michigan Walmart. Suspect in custody”
And I tend to agree with Mr. Raymond Ibrahim on this topic of the existence of the mass-murdering raper of children, human maggot, son of satan, lying sack of feculent matter.
The demon spawn was either the one written about, or the one doing the writing.
࿗Infidel࿘says
Good debate b/w Robert & Mary. On one hand, I was impressed that Mary took on each of Robert’s points head on. On the other, I wasn’t quite convinced by her arguments
One of the things she mentioned was that when police have eyewitness accounts, if they have the same description of an event, they are treated as non-credible, on the assumption that they had colluded to produce the story. I’d think the opposite would be true: if eyewitnesses had conflicting accounts of the same event that they witnessed, some of them simply got it wrong, or were downright lying. There may be minor differences b/w their accounts, but not a major one, as in the case of the various accounts of Muhammad laughing at the guy whose genitals he could see when that guy was shot by an arrow. Oh yes, and if the accounts became more detailed as time passed, then its credibility is definitely shot, unless you have forensic historians determining what happened
Since history was a part of the basis of this debate, like the references to Alexander the Great – whose existence has been documented by sources as varied as Greek to Mauryan, it’s worth noting that none of Muhammad’s contemporaries had heard of him. There was no Byzantine account of any letter from Muhammad to Emperor Heraclius of the Byzantines, or Shah Khosrao II of the Sassanids. I was also a little surprised that no one brought up where the Arab conquests started. If one also throws in the history of warfare as it was at the time, then the muslim narrative falls flat
The real question worth asking was what were the origins of the Umayyads: Mecca/Medina or Damascus? If one were to accept what’s in the sunnah, then according to that, a bunch of camel archers and swordsmen traveled from Medina to Damascus over however many days in that desert, and didn’t meet any opposition until Yarmouk, just south of Damascus. They then went on to defeat the Byzantines and occupy Damascus w/ no opposition whatsoever. Just using a casual observation of the history of warfare, it’s too far-fetched that an army that was probably fatigued by days of travel through the desert (this was centuries before the Medina-Damascus railroad) easily trounced an army fresh out of Damascus. Incidentally, they didn’t bother to take Petra, Jericho, en route before getting to Yarmouk. Why would they take the farther city first, and then turn back towards others, who have a good chance of obstructing them along the way?
However, if the Umayyads originated not from Medina but from Damascus, that would explain a lot of things, from the Syraic writings in the qur’an sources to why places like Jerusalem and Ctesiphon fell after Damascus. If one looks at what the Syrians were up to during that time, they were in rebellion against the Byzantines over theological issues. That explains the battle of Yarmouk, which was a battle b/w Byzantines and local Arabs, and why the Eastern Romans would lose so easily. Once the Syrian Arabs trounced the Byzantines, they decided to go on offense and consolidate, and quickly captured Jerusalem, Ctesiphon and started conquering the rest of the Byzantine and Sassanid empires. That would also describe the crosses on the coins as well as the Christian inscriptions inside the Dome of the Rock, since it wasn’t muslims, but Monophysite Syrian Arabs who conquered it
On the shi’a-sunni split in the 9th century, one reason that the sunni hadiths claimed that Muhammad had picked Ali could have been that they were compiled by the Abbasids, who had removed the Umayyads from power. Had the sunni hadiths listed Uthman or Muawiya as a legitimate successor of Muhammad, that would also have thrown into question the legitimacy of the Abbasid coup against them. Therefore, the Abbasids may have tossed this into the mix. Although it does then beg the question: why didn’t the Abbasids pick shi’a islam over sunni for their caliphate?
Robert did a great job in his book talking about, for example, the trade routes from Europe via the Silk Route and how it didn’t touch Mecca. But a better analysis would be a coverage of the Arab conquests – like where exactly they started, and how developed was islam at various stages – like the conquest of Spain, the invasion of Sind, the Samanid rulers of Iran, the Ghaznavids in Afghanistan and so on. That should account for why the initial churches/temples of Christians, Zoroastrians and Hindus which were destroyed weren’t replaced by mosques, which came later to prevent those temples from being rebuilt on those very sites (one of the earliest examples being in Buqhara, where a Zoroastrian tower of silence was demolished 5 times but rebuilt, and after the 5th time, the muslims built a mosque over it to prevent it from being reclaimed)
Daniel Mooresays
Islam is a Satanic death cult–pure and simple.
somehistorysays
Yes, satan invented it for worship of himself, just as he did with ancient evils….moloch/molech, ba’al, dagan, the false gods of the aztecs, etc.
The demon snake makes promises, like he did when tempting Jesus, so humans will worship him.
Troybeamsays
Satan is he real, yes absolutely. Possessed a very weak & cruel minded human body and wrote the Koran as a tool against God. Now there’s a thought.
Discover more from
Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.
Walter Sieruk says
If Muhammad hadn’t ever really existed then Islam is a terrible hoax played on humankind. By contrast ,is Muhammad really did exist as the founder of Islam then according to the Bible , Isaiah 8:20, he started a false religion of Islamic darkness. Muhammad then was and is a false prophet.
Jesus had foretold and warned about the coming of lying deceptive false prophets as Muhammad , For Jesus declared “Beware of false prophets ,who come to you in sheep’s clothing ,but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.” Matthew 7;15 [N,K.J.V.]
In addition , the Bible further warns that “many false prophets have gone out into the world,” First John 4:1 .
nicholas william tesdorf says
Islam does indeed look exactly like a terrible hoax played on mankind. Whether Mohammed existed or not is a totally different question.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
Walter
islam is a hoax on humankind irrespective of whether or not its purported founder existed
somehistory says
Ot, and it may not involve islime….but I’m guessing it does
“At least 11 people wounded, 6 critically, in a stabbing at a Michigan Walmart. Suspect in custody”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/at-least-11-people-wounded-6-critically-in-a-stabbing-at-a-michigan-walmart-suspect-in-custody/ar-AA1JlWHe?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=5c0ebebaa49345658e6f7dd572c05176&ei=11
somehistory says
And I tend to agree with Mr. Raymond Ibrahim on this topic of the existence of the mass-murdering raper of children, human maggot, son of satan, lying sack of feculent matter.
The demon spawn was either the one written about, or the one doing the writing.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
Good debate b/w Robert & Mary. On one hand, I was impressed that Mary took on each of Robert’s points head on. On the other, I wasn’t quite convinced by her arguments
One of the things she mentioned was that when police have eyewitness accounts, if they have the same description of an event, they are treated as non-credible, on the assumption that they had colluded to produce the story. I’d think the opposite would be true: if eyewitnesses had conflicting accounts of the same event that they witnessed, some of them simply got it wrong, or were downright lying. There may be minor differences b/w their accounts, but not a major one, as in the case of the various accounts of Muhammad laughing at the guy whose genitals he could see when that guy was shot by an arrow. Oh yes, and if the accounts became more detailed as time passed, then its credibility is definitely shot, unless you have forensic historians determining what happened
Since history was a part of the basis of this debate, like the references to Alexander the Great – whose existence has been documented by sources as varied as Greek to Mauryan, it’s worth noting that none of Muhammad’s contemporaries had heard of him. There was no Byzantine account of any letter from Muhammad to Emperor Heraclius of the Byzantines, or Shah Khosrao II of the Sassanids. I was also a little surprised that no one brought up where the Arab conquests started. If one also throws in the history of warfare as it was at the time, then the muslim narrative falls flat
The real question worth asking was what were the origins of the Umayyads: Mecca/Medina or Damascus? If one were to accept what’s in the sunnah, then according to that, a bunch of camel archers and swordsmen traveled from Medina to Damascus over however many days in that desert, and didn’t meet any opposition until Yarmouk, just south of Damascus. They then went on to defeat the Byzantines and occupy Damascus w/ no opposition whatsoever. Just using a casual observation of the history of warfare, it’s too far-fetched that an army that was probably fatigued by days of travel through the desert (this was centuries before the Medina-Damascus railroad) easily trounced an army fresh out of Damascus. Incidentally, they didn’t bother to take Petra, Jericho, en route before getting to Yarmouk. Why would they take the farther city first, and then turn back towards others, who have a good chance of obstructing them along the way?
However, if the Umayyads originated not from Medina but from Damascus, that would explain a lot of things, from the Syraic writings in the qur’an sources to why places like Jerusalem and Ctesiphon fell after Damascus. If one looks at what the Syrians were up to during that time, they were in rebellion against the Byzantines over theological issues. That explains the battle of Yarmouk, which was a battle b/w Byzantines and local Arabs, and why the Eastern Romans would lose so easily. Once the Syrian Arabs trounced the Byzantines, they decided to go on offense and consolidate, and quickly captured Jerusalem, Ctesiphon and started conquering the rest of the Byzantine and Sassanid empires. That would also describe the crosses on the coins as well as the Christian inscriptions inside the Dome of the Rock, since it wasn’t muslims, but Monophysite Syrian Arabs who conquered it
On the shi’a-sunni split in the 9th century, one reason that the sunni hadiths claimed that Muhammad had picked Ali could have been that they were compiled by the Abbasids, who had removed the Umayyads from power. Had the sunni hadiths listed Uthman or Muawiya as a legitimate successor of Muhammad, that would also have thrown into question the legitimacy of the Abbasid coup against them. Therefore, the Abbasids may have tossed this into the mix. Although it does then beg the question: why didn’t the Abbasids pick shi’a islam over sunni for their caliphate?
Robert did a great job in his book talking about, for example, the trade routes from Europe via the Silk Route and how it didn’t touch Mecca. But a better analysis would be a coverage of the Arab conquests – like where exactly they started, and how developed was islam at various stages – like the conquest of Spain, the invasion of Sind, the Samanid rulers of Iran, the Ghaznavids in Afghanistan and so on. That should account for why the initial churches/temples of Christians, Zoroastrians and Hindus which were destroyed weren’t replaced by mosques, which came later to prevent those temples from being rebuilt on those very sites (one of the earliest examples being in Buqhara, where a Zoroastrian tower of silence was demolished 5 times but rebuilt, and after the 5th time, the muslims built a mosque over it to prevent it from being reclaimed)
Daniel Moore says
Islam is a Satanic death cult–pure and simple.
somehistory says
Yes, satan invented it for worship of himself, just as he did with ancient evils….moloch/molech, ba’al, dagan, the false gods of the aztecs, etc.
The demon snake makes promises, like he did when tempting Jesus, so humans will worship him.
Troybeam says
Satan is he real, yes absolutely. Possessed a very weak & cruel minded human body and wrote the Koran as a tool against God. Now there’s a thought.