Was the Prophet Mohammad a False Prophet? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

An atheist-free area for those of religious belief to discuss religious topics.

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be discussed here or in The Agora. However, this forum is intended specifically as an area for those with religious belief to discuss religion without threads being derailed by atheist arguments. Please respect that. Political topics regarding religion belong in the Religion forum in the Political Issues section.
#14944827
@Orestes

What about the poetic justice thing about being executed by a jewess? Also if he was a real prophet how the fuck did he not see that coming? You don't even need to be a prophet to realise letting a woman cook you dinner after you randomly butchered and raped her whole family and clan and everyone she ever knew might be a personal security risk.
Last edited by SolarCross on 07 Sep 2018 12:56, edited 2 times in total.
#14944838
Yes its funny that no one noticed that Khal Drogo is a mockery of the Prophet Mohammad.

The best historical evidence for Mohamed is the rape of nine year old Aisha with the encouragement of her father. Aisha was 18 when Muhammad died. So therefore the younger Aisha was when Muhammad raped her the greater Abu Bakr's claim to the throne. If Muhammad hadn't raped Aisha at 9 years old then the Shia, who believed that Abu Bakr's claim to the throne was false had every reason to deny it.
#14944841
Rich wrote:Yes its funny that no one noticed that Khal Drogo is a mockery of the Prophet Muhammad.

I noticed that correlations between Khal Drogo's death and Mo's but I wouldn't call Drogo a mockery of Mo, Drogo as a proxy Mo is rather a flattering image. Khal Drogo is more of a Genghis Khan than a Muhammad really.
#14944902
colliric wrote:https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLuXxHEHGRVu9H54IfV0XkhnqkcC3wm8mR

Lol... Probably the funniest set of videos...

For years lefties have sown the multicultural wind, it seems now they are going to reap the whirl wind. Try as they might I just don't think Cultural Marxists are going to be able to protect their beloved Islam.

Lefties remind me of some messed up dozy teen age girl chasing one abusive partner after another. Each time rationalising their abuser as some poor victim that just needs understanding. Lefties started with the industrial working class as their saviour and went downhill from, there. The Bolshevik party, Stalin, third world dictators, Arab dictators, Chairman Mao, the IRA, the ANC, the PLO. And now its Muslims. We've had 1400 years of imperialism, theft, murder, rape, torture and lies from Muslims, nut to the leftie they are still inncoent victims that just need a bit more love.

To the leftie anything bad is always the fault of the Infidel. The endless supply of new Muslim Jihadi terrorists all created by the CIA / Mossad.
#14944929
Wow Rich, a totally non-repetitive post about totally not the same thing as always. It's enough to just see "1400" to know you wrote exactly the same boring shit again. Yes, Muslims bad, Muhammad pedophile, Left traitors, we know. It's like everytime I begin to drift towards Islamophobia I read another 1400-post by you and start liking Islam more just to spite you.
#14944949
Orestes wrote:Wow Rich, a totally non-repetitive post about totally not the same thing as always. It's enough to just see "1400" to know you wrote exactly the same boring shit again. Yes, Muslims bad, Muhammad pedophile, Left traitors, we know. It's like everytime I begin to drift towards Islamophobia I read another 1400-post by you and start liking Islam more just to spite you.


meh, fascists always turn out to be gushing fanboys of Islam. Genocide and jew hating, for the fascist, what's not to like?
#14945307
@SolarCross

meh, fascists always turn out to be gushing fanboys of Islam. Genocide and jew hating, for the fascist, what's not to like?


[Zag Edit: Rule 2]

ISIS would probably agree with every single one of your political beliefs (with the exception of your anti-Islamic ones).
#14945324
Orestes wrote:I actually find this interesting.

Apparently the case hinges on whether the Arabic words wateen and ahbar mean the same thing in both the Quran and the Hadith or not (which, let's be honest, none of us is qualified to say).

I wonder how many Muslim scholars even knew about this since then. I would expect that over 1400 years someone would notice the problem. Here is the most in-depth rebutall of the video that I have found - the author argues on linguistic grounds concerning those two words.

I guess a way to get around this, though a radical one, would be to go Quran-only, which actually is an option also.

Richard Carrier I respect, but invented Muhammad doesn't pass the smell test IMO (I haven't read the book by Spencer though). There is simply too much political, real-world stuff (which, I suppose, is not questioned) around him early on to be some kind of sock-puppet. Let's say Abu Bakr (for example) made him up as a source of authority. But if he was charismatic enough to get people to fight battles for him and establish alliances with other players, why even the need for a Muhammad? Wouldn't it be more effective to simply claim the Divine revelation for himself, if he thought that could bolster his position? What about the family and tribe of Muhammad (I don't think the existence of Banu Hashim is at all in question)? His purported wifes? Would they all be in on it too? And later the whole Shia fraction takes this fictional guy and runs with it as their source of authority? That's just off the top of my head and I am not even particularly well versed in early Islamic history.


I've heard of a theory which claims that Muhammad was actually invented by a group of scholars as late as the 15th century, and that figures like Abu Bakr and Umar were made up by these scholars as well. I'm gonna try to find the source.
#14945327
@Orestes

I don't think so since Old Quranic Arabic is practically incomprehensible to most Arabic speakers. A lot of the grammatical innovations that most Arabic readers take advantage of today didn't exist in 7th century Arabia however most of these grammatical innovations came from Islamic scholars.

So to answer your question as to whether or not Muslim scholars have known about this, probably but we certainly don't have any information about what they said. Most Islamic scholarly documents are either destroyed by the Mongols or locked away in the national library in Turkey.

@Saeko

I have actually never heard of that theory. The only theory I do know of is that Muhammed and the Quran was invented by the Umayyad Caliphate to garner legitimacy. The idea is based on the fact that the Quran wasn't actually produced in written form until the Umayyad era which means that the Umayyads could've altered the Quran. This is what Shias believe in i.e. they think that Muhammed, in the Quran, stated that Ali would be his successor but Umayyads wrote that out since they didn't want people to know the truth. However, recently, some Western scholars have argued that Muhammed was also a Umayyad invention since the most predominant sources of Muhammad's existence comes from the Quran and the hadith.

However, this theory obviously holds no water. For example, even disregarding Islamic sources both the Byzantines and the Sassanids have records which confirm the existence of a self-declared prophet known as Mohammed and that he started a religious/political movement known as Islam.
#14945369
@SolarCross

As Oxymandias said, there are non-Islamic sources that are near contemporaneous to the life of Muhammad; sources that we do not have for the historical Jesus.

So for a Christian to deny the historicity of Muhammad (when the existence of a historical Jesus is on even shakier ground) is a tad strange.

You foster unbelief in both.


:lol:
#14945392
ingliz wrote:
As Oxymandias said, there are non-Islamic sources that are near contemporaneous to the life of Muhammad; sources that we do not have for the historical Jesus.

So for a Christian to deny the historicity of Muhammad (when the existence of a historical Jesus is on even shakier ground) is a tad strange.

You foster unbelief in both.

Why are you addressing me with this? The errors you display in your post are these:

1. I don't doubt the existence of Mighty Mo, I said he was a false prophet, not that he didn't exist.
2. I am not a Christian.

Do you even read bro? :lol:

-----------

If you ever wondered why Nazis (and Commies too it would seem) love Islam so much here is why:


Last edited by SolarCross on 10 Sep 2018 13:30, edited 1 time in total.
#14945399
SolarCross wrote:Do you even read bro?

To be honest, I don't read your posts.*

They are shite.

So...

You post shit --> I saw shite ---> I assumed it was your shit.

As you do.


:)


* Once bitten twice shy and all that stuff.
Last edited by ingliz on 10 Sep 2018 13:54, edited 2 times in total.
#14945404
@SolarCross

Why did you do that? There was me trying to soften the blow and now I have to edit the post to put it back.

You're such a great feminist-communist stereotype,[…]

EU-BREXIT

I don't know about the others, but at least Honda[…]

a trace gas has increased from .025% to .04% ove[…]

Very Serious People

I will let Potemkin handle this should he come al[…]