Jesus, the Muhammad {a commentary on "Did Muhammad Exist?" by Robert Spencer}

Jihad Watch ^ | 2015 | Robert Spencer

[Cronos]

I've been reading

Did Muhammad Exist?: An Inquiry into Islam's Obscure Origin

and

What the Modern Martyr Should Know: 72 Grapes and not a single virgin.

and

No God but One: Allah or Jesus? (with Bonus Content): A Former Muslim Investigates the Evidence for Islam and Christianity

and

The Impact of Islam

And for fellow Freepers who know me, I'm an amateur historian.

The information in these books blew my mind.

To summarise:

1. The Arab empires in the 7th and 8th centuries do not mention any prophet, leave alone a prophet Muhammad.
2. The Buddhists, Christians, Zoroastrians do not mention anything about a prophet Muhamad or Islam or Muslims or the Quran.
3. Mecca itself is not mentioned in the Quran.
4. "Muhammad" is a title -- a title used in the Quran to refer to Jesus.
5. 1. Jesus is mentioned many times in the Qur'an but Muhammad is mentioend only 4 times
6. Muhammad means "the chosen one" -- no parent will give their child such a name and there was no usage of the name Muhamad before the 6th century.

7. Nabatea and ARabia were outside the realms of the roman empire (where orthodoxy christianity reigned) and you had Ebionite Christians (a jewish sect of christianity who believed that christians should become jews first and that jesus was a prophet of Yahweh) and Gnostics (people who believed the world was an illusion and that jesus never died on the cross

8. the name Jesus is in hebrew Yehoshua, the same name as the English Joshua -- remember that Joshua was a great warrior who killed many Canaanites in the OT

9. The Qur'an was not written down until many decades after Muhamad allegedly lived -- and the Sahih bukhara states that they had to get it from different people's heads.

10. The Hadiths and Sirah (actions and life of M) were not written until over a century after M allegedly died -- and even then there were so many thousands that there are still disputes over what was really said and what wasn't

11. The Arabs supposedly conquered the two superpowers - Byzantium and Sassanid Persia -- kind of like saying that in 1980 Afghanistan would conquer both the USSR and half the USA.

12. The entire area was heavily literate and had been writing and minting coins for thousands of years. YET for the first 100 years you don't see ANY coins with the name Muhamad or any of the first 3 Caliphs, you don't see any reference to the Qur'an -- strange right, if the Arabs conquered these peoples.

13. The Persians in 611 conquered Jerusalem and held it for a long time until the Byzantines supposedly reconquered it and then they lose it shortly to the ARabs (supposedly)

14. Yet the first "Muslim Empire" coins have the faces of Khurso II of Persia and his son -- quite strange considering the Islamic injunct against depictions of people

15. Khusro's favorite wife was a Nestorian (or more likely Ebionite) christian.

16. a real killer -- for the first few decades after Muhammad's alleged death, Muslims BOW TO JERUSALEM for prayers NOT TO MECCA. Then for some time they bow to Petra and ultimately to Mecca.

    It seems that what happened was:
    a. The Persian king converted to Ebionite religion -- not too hard considering the Persian capital was Ctesiphon, near what is now Baghdad.

    b. He defeated the Byzantines and took over much of their land

    c. He was soundly helped by his Arab (Lakhmid) and then ARab Ghassanid allies. He was probably also helped by Jews who saw his version of monotheism as probably closer to their and they probably thought he would not persecute them as the Byzantines did. His Semitic allies were welcomed by the Coptic Patriarch of Egypt (kinda stupid in hindsight) - which makes sense if they were "known" people as opposed to the Greek speaking Byzantines

    d. But after a few decades the Arab generals overthrew Khushro's son and moved the center of worship to Petra.

    e. But to justify their coup d'etat, they used the Qur'an reference to the "chosen one" Muhamad and instead of it refering to Jesus (or rather the Ebionite version of Jesus), they fabricated a whole new person, an Arab person.

    f. They then put the stories of the OT to favor them, like Abraham about to sacrifice Ishmael, not Isaac.

    g. They take the Gnostic idea that Jesus didn't die on the Cross and use it

    h. They then mix up Jesus and Joshua and use the tale of the warlord Joshua to aspects of Muhammad -- and add in details of other Arab warlords, so you have the stories of the warlord that goes into excruciating yet contradictory detail.

[Cronos]

Fellow Religion Forum Freepers, apologies for this unconventional post. I was just so enamoured by the above books and how they give one a deeper insight into not only the falseness of Islam, but also give you more information about the truth of Christianity.

I strongly recommend reading these books if and when you can

[Mercat]

Bookmark

[Fiddlstix]

MORE MUZZIE INFO:

The Pagan "moon god idol" Now Called Allah!
Click For Link

Click The Pic & The Text For Links

Pre-Islamic Arabia's religion was one of superstition. Belief in jinns (genies), curse casting, magic stones, totems was the norm - and it was against this background that Allah arose. Although the Quran is claimed to be a heavenly writing with no earthly source, evidence of these very sorts of cultural influence is found in such places as Suras 55, 72, 113 and 114.

Animism, the belief that spirits inhabit rocks, trees and other elements was also very commonplace. Some of these stones were venerated and used as a focal point for the worship of a particular tribal god. No surprise, Muhammad's family had just such a stone for their own tribe - a black stone, in fact, that they kept at the Kabah (where the tribal idols were set up). The pagan rites of bowing toward Mecca, making a pilgrimage to the Kabah, running around it seven times, kissing it, then running to the river to throw stones at the devil all found there way into Islamic practice.

The final piece of the puzzle was in found in the religion of the Sabeans, an astral religion that worshipped the moon god and planned their religious rites around the lunar calendar. One such rite was fasting from crescent moon to crescent moon, a practice which would also be adopted by Muhammad.

If these things were not present before Muhammad received them from Allah (who himself is the moon god of Muhammad's tribe), why did Muhammad not have to explain what those words meant in the Quran? How would people have known who Allah was? ( or: what a jinn was? what the Kabah was? what the word Islam meant? etc.). Even the word "Islam" which many believe to mean "submission" was not an original word. In Arabic it was a secular term that denoted the strength and bravery of a desert warrior (a definition that accurately reflects the war-like tribes that founded Islam with bloodshed).

The Moon God "Allah" is from the compound Arabic word "al-ilah" or in english "the god". Allah was known before Muhammad's time without a doubt. His name has been found in pre-islamic writings and other archeological finds. At the Kabah in Mecca over 350 gods were worshipped, but it was built especially for the chief deity - the moon god. Allah was the personal title of the moon god. Allah was married to the sun goddess. They produced three daughters, whose worship Muhammad would later make the mistake of condoning. The crescent moon symbol of Arabia came from this god.

Muhammad's family revered this particular god, and it is this idol that Muhammad declared to be the only true god. So, Allah - far from being the revealed God of the Bible as Muhammad would have us believe - is nothing more than an amplified pagan idol. Muhammad did not re-make the pagan god, he simply removed the lower deities from the rites of worship. That is why he never had to explain who Allah was.

By definition, an idol converted in the 7th century into a new god cannot be the same God revealed thousands of years earlier to Biblical prophets!
(Click For Link)

Click The Pic

Click The Pic

[arthurus]

My only quibble with Spencer is his suggestion that Islam could be possibly reformed. It cannot because orthodoxy is enforced at the lowest level and any effort to "reform" it is apostasy and is read out of the religion by the orthodox and its exponents subject to the death penalty that may be administered by any Moslem.

Within Islam is constant tension and internecine fighting as the purists go for each others' throats because each sees the other as less pure and therefore apostate.

[Cronos]

Mohammad i.e. the Praiseworthy one, in the Qur'an (replacing the NAME with the title)

1. "The Praiseworthy one" is only a messenger: many Were the messenger that passed away before him. If he died or were slain, will ye then Turn back on your heels? If any did turn back on his heels, not the least harm will he do to the God; but the God (on the other hand) will swiftly reward those who (serve Him) with gratitude.
2. The Praiseworthy one is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Messenger of the God, and the Seal of the Prophets: and The God has full knowledge of all things.
3. But those who believe and work deeds of righteousness, and believe in the (Revelation) sent down to the praiseworthy one - for it is the Truth from their Lord,- He will remove from them their ills and improve their condition.
4. The praiseworthy one is the messenger of the God; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other. Thou wilt see them bow and prostrate themselves (in prayer), seeking Grace from the God and (His) Good Pleasure.

   I can really, really see this as being the work of Ebionites - a sect that merged Judaism and Christianity

   It looks like Islam DID not conquer the Persians or the Byzantine empire, but different "arab" groups that we KNOW were already living in Jordan and southern Iraq just took over as local lords in the vacuum and then layer by layer put in the myth of "the Prophet Muhammad"

[arthurus]

The best book for an understanding of the threat faced by civilizatioin from Islam is in Emmet Scott's book

Mohammed Charlemagne for a short take and

M&C Controversy Revisited" for the book.

[Cronos]

Inscription by the Caliph Muawiyah in 662 AD

Note that it

1. starts with a cross
2. The translation is

   In the days of the servant of God Muʿāwiya (abdalla Maavia), the commander of the faithful (amēra almoumenēn) the hot baths of the people there were saved and rebuilt by ʿAbd Allāh son of Abū Hāshim (Abouasemou), the governor, on the fifth of the month of December, on the second day (of the week), in the 6th year of the indiction, in the year 726 of the colony, according to the Arabs (kata Arabas) the 42nd year, for the healing of the sick, under the care of Ioannes, the official of Gadara.

3. Muawiyah is not called Caliph (Khalifat) but comander of the faithful -- only later do Muslims call him Caliph
4. There is no mention of Muslims, the Qur'an or Muhammad! Otherwise every Muslim monument refers to "In the name of Muhammad"

[Cronos]

Early Islamic coins

Note that they have a Cross on them! Yet the Qur'an says They did not slay him, neither crucified him" (Qur’an 4:157)

Muslims do not believe that Christ died (he was "replaced") or rose from the death.

Yet these coins also have the word muhammad so "Let him be praised in the name of God"

[Boogieman]

“Note that it

starts with a cross”

No, the inscription is from right to left so the first line ENDS with a cross.

[Boogieman]

Oops, my bad, that actually is left to right, not right to left, you are correct.

[Jane Long]

.

[TXnMA]

"Oops, my bad, that actually is left to right, not right to left, you are correct."

Glad you saw the error of your ways! '-)

The 5th thru 17th letters (including the cross, and reading left-to-right) are

"ABDALLA AMAAVIA"

[joshua c]

My only quibble with Spencer is his suggestion that Islam could be possibly reformed. It cannot because orthodoxy is enforced at the lowest level and any effort to “reform” it is apostasy and is read out of the religion by the orthodox and its exponents subject to the death penalty that may be administered by any Moslem.
Within Islam is constant tension and internecine fighting as the purists go for each others’ throats because each sees the other as less pure and therefore apostate.

---

The protestant movement, the reformation of Christianity, was bloody and seemed impossible and took a very long time.

Apostate=Heretic

Protestants were heretics and subject to death in many Catholic countries. Protestants fled to new lands(America) because they could not practice their faith in England.

Bloody Mary got her name because she burned so many Protestants(Heretics) at the stake.

Seems near impossible but it has been done before.

There is an added component here, women’s rights. I believe the Islamic reformation will be led by muslim women.

[joshua c]

Muhammed is the Pirate Roberts in “The Princess Bride”

[arthurus]

The Protestants at least based their heresies on their own logical interpretation of the bible. A Moslem cannot do that with the Koran. There is no wiggle room. The Bible does not require violence to spread the religion or to retain members. The Koran has such requirements and to abjure them is to be completely outside of Islam. There is no room to re-interpret anything. There are no parables that can be taken different ways. There is nothing like Revelations which is anything but concrete.

Read a good translation of the Koran before you try to reform Islam. The bloody wars of the Reformation derived from the rulers using it all for their own advantage rather than from either side of the Religious controversy itself. The Moslem equivalent of that is for one ruler or insurgent to declare another apostate and ride in to slaughter the declared infidels and take a throne. The Result is a change of rulers and a lot of dead subject people and no change in the Religion or in its assault on the rest of humanity.

PS: he Protestants that sailed to America to worship their own way were running from Protestants.

[Cronos]

The Reformation period was bloody on both sides -- Catholics, Anglicans, Calvinists, Lutherans, can point out massacres committed by other sideS on them. Also Baptists were persecuted by Anglicans, unitarians by Lutherans, Lutherans by Calvinists (Prussia) and vice-versa. Not a nice time

But this is a digression.

A RE-FORMATION is just that -- re-"forming" i.e. going back to a perceived "earlier time" -- and Lutherans, Calvinists, Baptists etc. all had different perceptions of a good "earlier time" BUT whichever way they, or Catholics or Orthodox went, they come up with the earliest "times" -- Jesus and the Apostles

Even an atheist would agree that Jesus was a good man and a peaceable one. But the portrayal of a "Mohammad" is not -- so to "re-form" in Islam is to go back to the Hadith depiction -- and that is exactly what the Islamic state does

[Cronos]

” The Moslem equivalent of that is for one ruler or insurgent to declare another apostate and ride in to slaughter the declared infidels and take a throne. The Result is a change of rulers and a lot of dead subject people and no change in the Religion or in its assault on the rest of humanity.”

well written