Banned in some countries outside of the UK. A seasoned journalist, historical author attempts to find archaeological & literary evidence for the alleged Arabian Prophet of Islam outside of the Qur'an/Hadiths having access to the latest findings, going to the lands in question to look for key historical evidence.
R. Spencer's book "Did Muhammad Exist?" review;
"Essentially, Spencer maintains that the Arabian empire came first, the theology came later.
He concludes: "A careful investigation makes at least one thing clear: The details of Muhammad's life that have been handed down as canonical—that he unified Arabia by the force of arms, concluded alliances, married wives, legislated for his community, and did so much else—are a creation of political ferment dating from long after the time he is supposed to have lived. Similarly, the records strongly indicate that the Qur'an did not exist until long after it was supposed to have been delivered to the prophet of Islam."
"Did Muhammad exist? As a prophet of the Arabs who taught a vaguely defined monotheism, he may have existed. But beyond that, his life story is lost in the mists of legend, like those of Robin Hood and Macbeth. As the prophet of Islam, who received (or even claimed to receive) the perfect copy of the perfect eternal book from the supreme God, Muhammad almost certainly did not exist. There are too many gaps, too many silences, too many aspects of the historical record that simply do not accord, and cannot be made to accord, with the traditional account of the Arabian prophet teaching his Qur'an, energizing his followers to such an extent that they went out and conquered a good part of the world." (pp.214-215)
How will Muslims respond to this book? Some may seek to curse the author. They may respond in outrage. But that will not disprove the facts presented here. Islam is supposed to be a religion based in history. It is supposed to be a religion of reason. But if history will not support the claims of Islam, is it time for Muslims to rethink the legitimacy of Islam? Blind commitment to the teachings of the local imam will not be enough in this age of instant information and verification of facts" http://www.answering-islam.org/author...
Tom Holland's response to criticism of his documentary;
http://tinyurl.com/pcyrjuo
Note by A2T;
In Syro-Aramaic, a language that preceded Arabic, the word "Muhammad" isn't a name but a *title* defined as "The Anointed One/Chosen One". This title was the Syro-Aramaic reference to "The Christ" of the Bible in the areas of Syria and vicinity which historical evidence indisputably proves, then it would have of an Arab Prophet whom is unable to be found outside of the Qu'ran/Hadiths unless they're the few spurious sources that can't be corroborated/verified by other contemporaneous sources sufficiently since being pseudopigraphica's, which coincidentally comes from Catholic sources ultimately, thereby being suspect as to error in translation understanding by deliberate design more so then due to it being likely to general illiteracy of such populations of these times in such areas, which as well would have assisted greatly in spreading the wrong translation definition.
In the circa 1300-1400 year old story of an "Arab Prophet" built on actual factual history or is it a corrupted version of various astro-polytheistic/pantheistic/animistic religions of western Mesopotamia merged with certain Biblical stories being understood in a philosophical/gnostic/heathen way with only touches of Abrahamic understanding when seen though the lens of evidential history? For the student whom diligently/rigorously seeks and studies factual ancient/classical history, digs even deeper, they will find that Islam's monotheistic position begins when Rome has already been in the same areas since circa mid 4th century seeking converts to Roman Catholicism. Could modern Islam be a Romanized cult that could be called "Arabian Catholicism"? intermixed accordingly with various anti-biblical heathen religions, which Catholicism basically is in different flavours depending on where it is in the world which in the case of Islam, and gave Islam it's start around 720AD (officially by evidence, not tradition) with an eerie clue being how closely the dress of a Islamic women (Hijab) and a Catholic Nun's covering is for example? Or is Islam a more nefarious strategy by Rome's agents (Egyptian - Templar - Jesuit Jews (Edomite/sons of Esau) through murder and suppression of true history among other things to use as a fierce attack dog for decimating the world population, as is already occurring in order to usher in a One World Order?
Some who appear in the above documentary, either know an "Arabian Prophet" is myth into reality and are being dishonest, or they are unaware of such evidence. Did an alleged "Arabian Prophet" with the alleged 'name' of "Muhammad" actually exist, or is this really a Roman deception?
R. Spencer's book "Did Muhammad Exist?" review;
"Essentially, Spencer maintains that the Arabian empire came first, the theology came later.
He concludes: "A careful investigation makes at least one thing clear: The details of Muhammad's life that have been handed down as canonical—that he unified Arabia by the force of arms, concluded alliances, married wives, legislated for his community, and did so much else—are a creation of political ferment dating from long after the time he is supposed to have lived. Similarly, the records strongly indicate that the Qur'an did not exist until long after it was supposed to have been delivered to the prophet of Islam."
"Did Muhammad exist? As a prophet of the Arabs who taught a vaguely defined monotheism, he may have existed. But beyond that, his life story is lost in the mists of legend, like those of Robin Hood and Macbeth. As the prophet of Islam, who received (or even claimed to receive) the perfect copy of the perfect eternal book from the supreme God, Muhammad almost certainly did not exist. There are too many gaps, too many silences, too many aspects of the historical record that simply do not accord, and cannot be made to accord, with the traditional account of the Arabian prophet teaching his Qur'an, energizing his followers to such an extent that they went out and conquered a good part of the world." (pp.214-215)
How will Muslims respond to this book? Some may seek to curse the author. They may respond in outrage. But that will not disprove the facts presented here. Islam is supposed to be a religion based in history. It is supposed to be a religion of reason. But if history will not support the claims of Islam, is it time for Muslims to rethink the legitimacy of Islam? Blind commitment to the teachings of the local imam will not be enough in this age of instant information and verification of facts" http://www.answering-islam.org/author...
Tom Holland's response to criticism of his documentary;
http://tinyurl.com/pcyrjuo
Note by A2T;
In Syro-Aramaic, a language that preceded Arabic, the word "Muhammad" isn't a name but a *title* defined as "The Anointed One/Chosen One". This title was the Syro-Aramaic reference to "The Christ" of the Bible in the areas of Syria and vicinity which historical evidence indisputably proves, then it would have of an Arab Prophet whom is unable to be found outside of the Qu'ran/Hadiths unless they're the few spurious sources that can't be corroborated/verified by other contemporaneous sources sufficiently since being pseudopigraphica's, which coincidentally comes from Catholic sources ultimately, thereby being suspect as to error in translation understanding by deliberate design more so then due to it being likely to general illiteracy of such populations of these times in such areas, which as well would have assisted greatly in spreading the wrong translation definition.
In the circa 1300-1400 year old story of an "Arab Prophet" built on actual factual history or is it a corrupted version of various astro-polytheistic/pantheistic/animistic religions of western Mesopotamia merged with certain Biblical stories being understood in a philosophical/gnostic/heathen way with only touches of Abrahamic understanding when seen though the lens of evidential history? For the student whom diligently/rigorously seeks and studies factual ancient/classical history, digs even deeper, they will find that Islam's monotheistic position begins when Rome has already been in the same areas since circa mid 4th century seeking converts to Roman Catholicism. Could modern Islam be a Romanized cult that could be called "Arabian Catholicism"? intermixed accordingly with various anti-biblical heathen religions, which Catholicism basically is in different flavours depending on where it is in the world which in the case of Islam, and gave Islam it's start around 720AD (officially by evidence, not tradition) with an eerie clue being how closely the dress of a Islamic women (Hijab) and a Catholic Nun's covering is for example? Or is Islam a more nefarious strategy by Rome's agents (Egyptian - Templar - Jesuit Jews (Edomite/sons of Esau) through murder and suppression of true history among other things to use as a fierce attack dog for decimating the world population, as is already occurring in order to usher in a One World Order?
Some who appear in the above documentary, either know an "Arabian Prophet" is myth into reality and are being dishonest, or they are unaware of such evidence. Did an alleged "Arabian Prophet" with the alleged 'name' of "Muhammad" actually exist, or is this really a Roman deception?
Post a Comment