• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gregg Gutfeld Says He Plans to Open Gay Bar Next to Mosque

Last edited:
I already commented on that he was relaying stories that he heard from the Muslims,
Incorrect. Regardless, it is a non-Muslim primary source that affirms the historicity of Muhammad.
and it doesn't give a date for when he wrote about Mohammad it could have been decades after his supposed death.
No crap? It is a work entitled "History"...

But I wished to concisely write down and narrate to you [information] about all the following [events]: all the evil which transpired in Peroz' time; Vardan's rebellion against Xosrov; the rebellion of the Iranian troops from Ormizd; Ormizd's death and the enthronement of Xosrov; Maurice's death and the reign of Phocas; the taking of Egypt; [3] the destruction of Alexandria; the appeal of Heraclius to the king of the T'eatalats'ik' in the Northern parts and the sending of countless multitudes of peoples [in response to Heraclius' appeal]; the Byzantines' raiding in Atrpatakan, the loot and booty; the return via P'aytakaran; the coming of Iranian troops from the east to strike at him; the war which occurred in the land of [Caucasian] Aghbania; the emperor's turn to the city of Naxchewan and the fight at Archish; the emperor's departure thence to his own borders; the other attack on Xosrov; the warfare which occurred at Ninue; the raid upon the city of Ctesiphon (Tisbon); the return to Atrpatakan; Xosrov's death; the enthronement of Kawad; the reconciliation which occurred between the two kingdoms [Byzantium and Iran]; then the ceding of borders to the Byzantines; the return of the divine Cross to the Holy City. [Then I shall describe] the arousal of fathomless [divine] anger and the final disasters [brought on] by the marauders from the Southern parts [the Arabs]; how the armies of the Ishmaelites unexpectedly moved forth and, in a moment's time, overthrowing the might of both kings, seized [territories extending] from Egypt to this side of the great Euphrates river and to the border of the Armenians [ts' sahman Hayastaneayts'], from the shores of the great sea in the West [the Atlantic] to the gate/court of the Iranian kingdom, [taking] all the [4] cities of Mesopotamia of the Syrians, and Ctesiphon, Veh Artashir, Marand, Hamatan as far as the city of Gandzak, and the great Hrat which is located in the district of Atrpatakan.
 
Incorrect. Regardless, it is a non-Muslim primary source that affirms the historicity of Muhammad.

A) It is not a primary source he was reciting things that he had heard from Muslims

B) Unless you provide the date which he wrote it then it is not even a contemporary source.

No crap? It is a work entitled "History"...

And what is that "history" based on besides stories told by Muslims?

You have absolutely 0 evidence for the existence of Mohammad, you don't have paintings made of him from the time as it was commanded not to have portraits of human figures (gee how convenient) you don't have any non-Muslim primary source recounting first hand events and you haven't even proven that you have a secondary contemporary source speaking about Mohammad before his supposed death. Why no mention of Mohammad by the Sassanids or the Byzantines until long after his death if he was such an important figure?
 
Last edited:
A) It is not a primary source he was reciting things that he had heard from Muslims
Source for this assertion?
B) Unless you provide the date which he wrote it then it is not even a contemporary source.
Most historians have suggested 661 AD.

And what is that "history" based on besides stories told by Muslims?
Do you have any evidence you would like to provide that Sebeos was told "stories" by Muslims? Otherwise, your assertions are baseless.
You have absolutely 0 evidence for the existence of Mohammad,
You have absolutely 0 evidence for the nonexistence of Muhammad.
you don't have paintings made of him from the time as it was commanded not to have portraits of human figures (gee how convenient)
So? We don't have paintains made of numerous historical figures. That doesn't mean they didn't exist. What asinine reasoning.
you don't have any non-Muslim primary source recounting first hand events and you haven't even proven that you have a secondary contemporary source speaking about Mohammad before his supposed death. Why no mention of Mohammad by the Sassanids or the Byzantines until long after his death if he was such an important figure?
Why don't you accept Muslim primary sources? Or do you have selective source bias?

In case you forgot, you were the one who asserted that Muhammad did not exist. The burden of proof on proving that is on you.
 
Source for this assertion?

He had to have been because he did not live in the same area as Mohammad, wrote the text 30 years after Mohammad supposedly died, and his story matches the Muslim narrative which according to you he didn't write until he came into contact with the Muslims after their Imperialist Expansionist war in which they conquered Armenia.


Most historians have suggested 661 AD.

That's 3 decades after Mohammads supposed death thus it is not even a contemporary source let alone a primary source.

Do you have any evidence you would like to provide that Sebeos was told "stories" by Muslims? Otherwise, your assertions are baseless.

He never lived in the ****ing Arabian penninsula, he wrote the text 30 years after Mohammad supposedly died, and his is the Muslim narrative which he wrote after the Muslims conquered Armenia where he lived.

You have absolutely 0 evidence for the nonexistence of Muhammad.

I'm not the one making the positive claim.

So? We don't have paintains made of numerous historical figures.

Really, which famous historical figures do we not have some sort of visual record of?

That doesn't mean they didn't exist. What asinine reasoning.

I'm still trying to think of an important historical figure who we don't have some sort of contemporary visual record of.

Why don't you accept Muslim primary sources? Or do you have selective source bias?

I don't accept Muslim primary sources because they have a clear bias. I don't accept Greek sources for the existence of Achilles. Achilles like Mohammad is a mythical not a historical figure. If Mohammad existed then there would have been a contemporary record of him by the Sassanids and/or the Byzantines. It is asserted that a biography was written about him nearly a century after his death and no copies exist and coins with his name on them weren't struck until 6 decades after his death.


In case you forgot, you were the one who asserted that Muhammad did not exist. The burden of proof on proving that is on you.

Are you out of your bloody mind, it is you and all Muslims who claim that Mohammad existed, it is up to the person making the positive claim to prove it.
 
Last edited:
He had to have been because he did not live in the same area as Mohammad, wrote the text 30 years after Mohammad supposedly died, and his story matches the Muslim narrative which according to you he didn't write until he came into contact with the Muslims after their Imperialist Expansionist war in which they conquered Armenia.
You could have said you had no source for your asinine assertion and that all you had was your own speculative opinions. Lucky that doesn't mean crap when discussing historicity.
That's 3 decades after Mohammads supposed death thus it is not even a contemporary source let alone a primary source.
Are you that obtuse? Anything written after a person's death is a contemporary source. Stop being disingenuous and try to have an honest debate for once.
He never lived in the ****ing Arabian penninsula, he wrote the text 30 years after Mohammad supposedly died, and his is the Muslim narrative which he wrote after the Muslims conquered Armenia where he lived.
You could have said you had no source for your asinine assertion and that all you had was your own speculative opinions. Lucky that doesn't mean crap when discussing historicity.
I'm not the one making the positive claim.
No, you're the only one making ANY type of claim. I BELIEVE Muhammad existed. You CLAIM he did not (and provided no evidence to substantiate the absurd claim). YOU were the one who brought up Muhammad's nonexistence in this thread. The burden of proof lies on you.
Really, which famous historical figures do we not have some sort of visual record of?
There's plenty. The one off the top of my head is the Socratic problem. All we have are Plato's and Xenophon's writings to confirm that he existed. The general consensus is that Socrates was a historical figure who existed. The only visual record of Socrates came centuries after his "supposed" death.

Your suspicion of disbelief is not a valid proof that none of these people existed. It is merely doubt in a mind that still needs education.
I'm still trying to think of an important historical figure who we don't have some sort of contemporary visual record of.
Read above.
I don't accept Muslim primary sources because they have a clear bias.
Identify that bias? To prove that Muhammad ACTUALLY did exist? I'm sure the companions of Muhammad had insight that ignorant people wouldn't believe he was a real person.
I don't accept Greek sources for the existence of Achilles. Achilles like Mohammad is a mythical not a historical figure.
Substantiate your assertions. Otherwise it remains as baseless drivel.
If Mohammad existed then there would have been a contemporary record of him by the Sassanids and/or the Byzantines.
Logical fallacy. Not to mention this: Muqawqis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Are you out of your bloody mind, it is you and all Muslims who claim that Mohammad existed, it is up to the person making the positive claim to prove it.
No, we BELIEVE he existed. That is part of our religion. You are a militant atheist who came into this thread and asserted that Muhammad did not exist. The burden of proof lies on the person making the assertion. The person who needs to prove their unsubstantiated words is you.

Until you actually back up your claims, your points will remain baseless and meaningless.
 
You could have said you had no source for your asinine assertion and that all you had was your own speculative opinions. Lucky that doesn't mean crap when discussing historicity.

You have no primary/contemporary non-Muslim source demonstrating the existence of Mohammad. It is plainly obvious that he is not a primary source because he never lived in Arabia and wrote the article 3 decades after Mohammad died.

Are you that obtuse? Anything written after a person's death is a contemporary source. Stop being disingenuous and try to have an honest debate for once.

OMFG you are really that obtuse. Contemporary as in a contemporary of the time in which Mohammad lived, when people say a contemporary source they mean a source occurring in the same period of time.

You could have said you had no source for your asinine assertion and that all you had was your own speculative opinions. Lucky that doesn't mean crap when discussing historicity.

You have no primary/contemporary non-Muslim source demonstrating the existence of Mohammad. It is plainly obvious that he is not a primary source because he never lived in Arabia and wrote the article 3 decades after Mohammad died.

No, you're the only one making ANY type of claim. I BELIEVE Muhammad existed. You CLAIM he did not (and provided no evidence to substantiate the absurd claim). YOU were the one who brought up Muhammad's nonexistence in this thread. The burden of proof lies on you.

I am claiming that there is no evidence that he should be considered anything more than a mythical rather than a historical figure along the lines of Achilles.

There's plenty. The one off the top of my head is the Socratic problem. All we have are Plato's and Xenophon's writings to confirm that he existed. The general consensus is that Socrates was a historical figure who existed. The only visual record of Socrates came centuries after his "supposed" death.

Really then who's this:

socrates - Google Search

Your suspicion of disbelief is not a valid proof that none of these people existed. It is merely doubt in a mind that still needs education.

Then provide evidence from non-Muslim contemporary sources.

Read above.

Identify that bias?

It would be like stating that Achilles was a historical figures based solely on the word of a Greek historian. Like Mohammad there is no reason to believe that Achilles is anything more than a mythical figure.

To prove that Muhammad ACTUALLY did exist? I'm sure the companions of Muhammad had insight that ignorant people wouldn't believe he was a real person.

It's simply untenable to suggest that such an important figure would not have been recorded by any of the neighboring empires at the time.

Substantiate your assertions. Otherwise it remains as baseless drivel.

There is as much evidence for the existence of Mohammad as there is for the existence of Achilles.

Logical fallacy.

No it's common sense.


lol it states quite clearly that it says "according to Muslim historians," well what about the Sassanid or Byzantine historians why did they not record this account of one of their own? This is nothing more than a story used by the Muslims to bolster their claims to be following the one true prophet.

No, we BELIEVE he existed. That is part of our religion. You are a militant atheist who came into this thread and asserted that Muhammad did not exist. The burden of proof lies on the person making the assertion. The person who needs to prove their unsubstantiated words is you.

Until you actually back up your claims, your points will remain baseless and meaningless.

I asserted that I doubt he exists, it is Muslims who claim that he existed, so the burden of proof is on you.
 
Back
Top Bottom