Just another mythical religious figure?

Somerville · Mar 29, 2015

Please try not to bring in tirades about the modern versions of this particular religion

German Muslim scholar says Muhammed is a mythical character

SPIEGEL ONLINE: There is a group of prominent German Islamic scholars, who are becoming increasingly aggressive about questioning whether the existence of the Prophet is even historically accurate. The theory got its most recent backing from the University of Münster's Professor Muhammad Sven Kalisch, who is in charge of training teachers for Islamic education at the secondary-school level. The Ministry of Education of the state of North Rhine-Westphalia is now planning to calm the waters by appointing an additional professor of Islamic pedagogy. Are we witnessing a split into two camps?

Marx: I don't see it that way. But we should note that what we have from Kalisch at the moment are only the things he has allegedly said. From them, it sounds like he has decided to back the thesis of Professor Karl-Heinz Ohlig, which Ohlig publicized three years ago in his book "Dark Beginnings" ("Die dunklen Anfänge"). There, Ohlig posits that the Koran is a Christian text and that Muhammad probably never lived. But this group, which also includes the numismatist Volker Popp and some others, is very small. I'd say that their position isn't really within the realm of accepted scholarship.

A recently published book by Robert Spencer, Did Muhammad Exist?: An Inquiry into Islam's Obscure Origins is a compilation of historical studies about the origins of Islam, citing scholars going back to the late 19th/early 20th Century who doubted the existence of a man named Muhammed as the orginator of the faith.

Günter Lüling is a German Protestant theologian, philological scholar (Dr. in Arabistics and Islamics) and pioneer in the study of early Islamic origins. From 1962 to 1965 he was the Director of the German Goethe-Institut in Aleppo, Syria. Professor Lüling sees the foundation of Islam in a group of Christians who denied the Trinitarian orthodox beliefs.

Skeptic Bob · Mar 29, 2015

I don't know enough about the subject. I think it is slightly more likely there was a historical Muhammad than there was a historical Jesus, just as I think it is more likely there was a historical Jesus than there was a historical Moses. I think the more time that goes by the likelihood of it being pure myth increases. Nobody doubts there was a historical John Smith (of the Mormons) or an L. Ron Hubbard.

CrabCake · Mar 30, 2015

BrewerBob said:
I think the more time that goes by the likelihood of it being pure myth increases. Nobody doubts there was a historical John Smith (of the Mormons) or an L. Ron Hubbard.

So, people 1000 years from now should doubt that John Smith and L. Ron Hubbard existed?

Skeptic Bob · Mar 30, 2015

CrabCake said:
So, people 1000 years from now should doubt that John Smith and L. Ron Hubbard existed?

We have gotten a bit better at record keeping it would seem. But if for some reason all those records were lost then it would be understandable to doubt their existence. There may even be confusion over the existence of Bruce Wayne.

fschmidt · Mar 30, 2015

Doesn't this thread belong under "Conspiracy Theories" rather than "Philosophical Discussions"? Better to consolidate all such nonsense in one place.

Somerville · Mar 30, 2015

fschmidt said:
Doesn't this thread belong under "Conspiracy Theories" rather than "Philosophical Discussions"? Better to consolidate all such nonsense in one place.

Why would you say this is a "Conspiracy"? To me it is an academic/philosophical question - just as discussion of Jesus Myth theories are academic/philosophical questions.

Chagos · Mar 30, 2015

Ohlig (who Kalish does not profess to follow in all his deductions) is neither an orientalist nor a specialized Islam researcher. Something he is the first to admit as being a deficit.

Case solved.

CrabCake · Mar 31, 2015

BrewerBob said:
We have gotten a bit better at record keeping it would seem. But if for some reason all those records were lost then it would be understandable to doubt their existence. There may even be confusion over the existence of Bruce Wayne.

Your original assertion was that the more time that goes by the likelihood of it being pure myth increases. Now you're switching to the assertion that the less records we have, the higher the likelihood it is a myth. You are no longer willing to stand by your claim that it is time that makes it more likely?

Skeptic Bob · Mar 31, 2015

CrabCake said:
Your original assertion was that the more time that goes by the likelihood of it being pure myth increases. Now you're switching to the assertion that the less records we have, the higher the likelihood it is a myth. You are no longer willing to stand by your claim that it is time that makes it more likely?

It just so happens that the further back you go the less reliable records there are. However, going forward from the Information Age I think that no longer holds true.

Somerville · Apr 1, 2015

Chagos said:
Ohlig (who Kalish does not profess to follow in all his deductions) is neither an orientalist nor a specialized Islam researcher. Something he is the first to admit as being a deficit.

Case solved.

How do you read -- the case is solved?

Chagos · Apr 1, 2015

Somerville said:
How do you read -- the case is solved?

As in (per answer to the OP question) how a few dissidents do not make a case, especially in the way that's gone about it.

Somerville · Apr 2, 2015

Chagos said:
As in (per answer to the OP question) how a few dissidents do not make a case, especially in the way that's gone about it.

The "few dissidents" do have some questions with supporting data that should be at least examined by others.

For example: why would a Christian writing in 634 CE, talk about a "prophet with a sword" leading the Arabs when Muhammed supposedly died in 632 CE?
Why would early coins minted in the time of the First Caliphate have crosses on them?

Just another mythical religious figure?

Member