Yeah, Well Muhammad Never Existed Either

Muhammad Sven Kalisch, professor of Islamic theology, has come to the conclusion, after years of research, that the prophet Muhammad never existed. Personally, I never got the feeling that Muhammad was mythical (you know, like Jebus) simply because mundane aspects of his life seem to be recorded as well as the glorious moments, and that seems to be the hallmark of the validity of an historic character.
But, this guy knows his subject a lot better than I do. We’ll be watching the fallout from this for awhile, I suspect.

Link To Article

I’m starting to lean toward the Jesus Myth postion, myself. I just ordered the Jesus Puzzle, which I’ve heard good things about… not from Christians, though.

Explore posts in the same categories: atheism, religion

5 Comments on “Yeah, Well Muhammad Never Existed Either”

  1. Is there something wrong with simply taking the thought behind it and making something good out of it. When you boil it down, does it really matter whether these individuals physically existed as long as the message is one of tolerance and love?

  2. gfish Says:

    For some reason, it strikes me as odd that when a name appears on a coin determines whether a person existed or not. To say that Muhammad didn’t exist would also mean that his numerous progeny and in-laws which advanced Islam after his death and the first four caliphs didn’t exist either. Ayisha, Ali, Omar, Abu Bakr, Uthman, Hassan and Hysein would all be suspect. This is not to mention the elders of Medina and their vociferous critics who debated whether it was wise to allow a random warlord named Muhammad to take control of the city.

    Jesus’ randomly recoded encounters, missing 30 years, ordinary appearance, similarity with dozens of other Biblical and pagan heroes, lack of any leadership or recognition beyond his small flock and lack of recorded progeny grants some credence to the theory the he might not have existed. After all, there’s only one mention of him in a historical record, one made by Josephus about 50 years after his death when Christianity was beginning its growth in Judea.

    But Muhammad was the ruler of an Arabian city state. He left an enormous extended family which ruled the Islamic Empire for centuries and even the slightest minutia of his life is documented. There’s less documentation about Alexander, Augustus and Cleopatra then there is about Muhammad. Does that mean that Alexander never existed and the last of the Ptolemaic rulers losing Egypt is just a Roman myth?

  3. universalheretic Says:

    Personally, I would like to know if what I believe is true or not. Just to be honest with myself. I suppose there is validity to just saying, “it works for me, who cares”. But, doing that may mask the true cause of the practitioner’s “enlightenment”. As an example, acupuncture appears to work, but tests performed on it has pointed (ha ha) to the environment of the clinic rather than the practice itself being the source of any effects. That’s good to know. I can just sit in a darkened room and relax rather than paying someone to stick needles in my neck. Plus, I don’t really want anyone passing laws because of stories and myths that never really happened.

    gfish, I think you’re right. I don’t think this professor’s theory really seems to hold any water. There actually are reasons for the Christ Myth hypothesis (I thought it was a bit crazy until I started looking into it). But, the Muhammad myth just seems to be an attempt to poke at Islamic beliefs.

  4. Dick Moore Says:

    There is zero direct evidence of Muhammad. He is as unattested as Jesus, though parts of his *story* are more realistic they also smack of midrash/rewrites of Old Testament and New Testament stories.

    A character comparable to Muhammad would be King David, who supposedly ruled a great city that never existed after an exile that never happened and an invasion which didn’t take place following a religion that didn’t exist at the time.

    Muhammad seems to me to be a front-man originally posited by an Arabian Syriac Christian Sultanate used as an imaginary historical character (by them) to gain ‘new revelation’ (ala King Josiah and his priests and their ‘reforms’, i.e. rationalization for religious centralization based on new books of Moses that they ‘found’).

    As his sect spread and his kingdom fell the Caliphate came to be associated with Muhammed himself and a town which was growing, Mecca, but was actually a gas station equivalent at the time which Muhammad is alleged to have lived. As these later Muhammadeans sought to further distinguish themselves from Oriental, Chaldean and Syriac Christians they Judaized their sect even further.

    A lot of this is speculative, of course, but I think it’s got a firm basis in the Maccabean creation of Judean religion out of various Canaanite and Zoroastrian religious elements, all strongly influenced by Mesopotamian and Greek rule. The near east was built on God Kings, and we should not be surprised to see a rehashed imaginary prophet show up every few centuries.

    • Dick Moore Says:

      If you look at the Quran without its contrived grammar and artificial parsing, and compare it to Syriac liturgy, it becomes apparent that much of the book is straight from these Syriac songs and ritual texts; also, a lot of it has been mis-translated and pieced together so that it’s pretty much gibberish and any ‘sense’ to it is based on priests inventing rules like the flippin’ Bible Code.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: