- Joined
- Mar 22, 2009
- Messages
- 4,324
- Reaction score
- 915
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
You need to be more careful with your words, for someone who is so quick to insult others for mistakes you are remarkably careless in your reasoning. You say that there is "no evidence" that Muhammad (this is the proper spelling, btw) existed, but there is.
Proper according to whom? I've seen it both ways.
There is plenty of evidence supporting the existence of Muhammad, not least of which is the Qur'an and the Hadith. You might not find this particularly persuasive but it is evidence nevertheless, and no amount of histrionics from you will change that fact.
O.K. there is no credible evidence. There is nothing that separates the character of Mohammad from the character of Achilles, or various other mythical characters. In other words if he wasn't claimed as the prophet for a billion people we wouldn't even be discussing this. There is no evidence which should take Mohammad out of the realm of mythical into the historical.
Furthermore you equivocate between "evidence" and "non-Muslim evidence" as if the only source that constitutes actual evidence can come from a non-Muslim source. This is incorrect. A non-Muslim source might be stronger evidence, but this does not detract from the fact that Muslim sources very much remain a category of evidence (please let me know if I'm going to fast for you here).
I will not accept Greek sources for the existence of Achilles nor will I accept Muslim sources for the existence of Mohammad, there is nothing that leads me to believe that Mohammad is anything more than a mythical rather than a historical character.
Indeed, despite your flailing denials of Bishop Sebeos, you cannot contradict that fact that contemporaneous, non-Muslim evidence for the historicity of Muhammad does exist. "Evidence" and "evidence that convinces you" are two different things. You would do well to keep them straight.
Sebeos = fail.
Sebeos was clearly recounting the tales he heard from the Muslims after they conquered Armenia during the Imperialist Expanisionism of the Rashidun Caliphate, he repeated these stories 3 decades after Mohammads supposed death, and his stories match the Muslim narrative to the letter. He was neither a contemporary or primary source.