The books that ended islam.

The books that ended islam.

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

Yakub: World's Greatest Dad Shirt $21.68

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

  1. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    ended? if you claim that it could say "the books that will end islam"

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Ended islam in the minds of sincere muslims who read them.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        how do you know? I used to be a muslim but it wasn't anything related to islam but I just didn't believe in a god anymore

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Overwhelming majority of Muslims will continue to be Muslim. Islam ain't going away any time soon.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Not if they're exposed to real history, so you better keep those books away from them.

  2. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    All of them seem good but Robert Spencer. Damn that ugly looking israelite homosexual.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      he is very ugly but the book is surprisingly good

  3. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    The comic that devastated Islam…

  4. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >rushdie
    You are a pleb

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      There's no rushdie in that pic. You're seeing things.

      The Muhammad didn't exist shit is even sillier than the Jesus didn't exist crowd. We have numerous 7th century non-muslim sources that mention Muhammad.

      >We have numerous 7th century non-muslim sources that mention Muhammad.
      Those sources don't call him Muhammad and their descriptions don't match that of the Muhammad we know through islamic sources.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        The sources I will reference are here:

        Sure. They're available on wiki:

        >There is a reference recording the Arab conquest of Syria (known as Fragment on the Arab Conquests), that mentions Muhammed. This much faded note is preserved on folio 1 of BL Add. 14,461, a codex containing the Gospel according to Matthew and the Gospel according to Mark. This note appears to have been penned soon after the battle of Gabitha (636 CE) at which the Arabs inflicted crushing defeat of the Byzantines.

        >… and in January, they took the word for their lives (did) [the sons of] Emesa [i.e., ̣Hiṃs)], and many villages were ruined with killing by [the Arabs of] Muḥammad and a great number of people were killed and captives [were taken] from Galilee as far as Bēth [...] and those Arabs pitched camp beside [Damascus?] [...] and we saw everywhe[re...] and o[l]ive oil which they brought and them. And on the t[wenty six]th of May went S[ac[ella]rius]... cattle [...] [...] from the vicinity of Emesa and the Romans chased them [...] and on the tenth [of August] the Romans fled from the vicinity of Damascus [...] many [people] some 10,000. And at the turn [of the ye]ar the Romans came; and on the twentieth of August in the year n[ine hundred and forty-]seven there gathered in Gabitha [...] the Romans and great many people were ki[lled of] [the R]omans, [s]ome fifty thousand [...][53]

        1/?

        >The 7th-century Chronicle of 640 was published by Wright who first brought to attention the mention of an early date of 947 AG (635–36 CE).[54] The contents of this manuscript has puzzled many scholars for their apparent lack of coherence as it contains an assembly of texts with diverse nature.[55] In relation to Arabs of Mohamed, there are two important dates mentioned in this manuscript.

        >AG 945, indiction VII: On Friday, 4 February, [i.e., 634 CE / Dhul Qa'dah 12 AH] at the ninth hour, there was a battle between the Romans and the Arabs of Muḥammad [Syr. tayyāyē d-Mḥmt] in Palestine twelve miles east of Gaza. The Romans fled, leaving behind the patrician YRDN (Syr. BRYRDN), whom the Arabs killed. Some 4000 poor villagers of Palestine were killed there, Christians, israelites and Samaritans. The Arabs ravaged the whole region. AG 947, indiction IX: The Arabs invaded the whole of Syria and went down to Persia and conquered it; the Arabs climbed mountain of Mardin and killed many monks there in [the monasteries of] Kedar and Benōthō. There died the blessed man Simon, doorkeeper of Qedar, brother of Thomas the priest.[56]

        It is the first date above which is of great importance as it provides the first explicit reference to Muhammad in a non-Muslim source. The account is usually identified with the battle of Dathin.[57] According to Hoyland, "its precise dating inspires confidence that it ultimately derives from first-hand knowledge".[58]

        2/3

        >Another account of the early seventh century comes from Sebeos who was an Armenian bishop of the House of Bagratuni. His account indicates he was writing at a time when memories of sudden eruption of the Arabs were fresh. He knows Muhammad's name, that he was a merchant by profession, and hints that his life was suddenly changed by a divinely inspired revelation.[59] Sebeos is the first non-Muslim author to present a theory for the rise of Islam that pays attention to what the Muslims themselves thought they were doing.[60]

        >At that time a certain man from along those same sons of Ismael, whose name was Mahmet [i.e., Mụhammad], a merchant, as if by God's command appeared to them as a preacher [and] the path of truth. He taught them to recognize the God of Abraham, especially because he was learnt and informed in the history of Moses. Now because the command was from on high, at a single order they all came together in unity of religion. Abandoning their vain cults, they turned to the living God who had appeared to their father Abraham. So, Mahmet legislated for them: not to eat carrion, not to drink wine, not to speak falsely, and not to engage in fornication. He said: 'With an oath God promised this land to Abraham and his seed after him for ever. And he brought about as he promised during that time while he loved Israel. But now you are the sons of Abraham and God is accomplishing his promise to Abraham and his seed for you. Love sincerely only the God of Abraham, and go and seize the land which God gave to your father Abraham. No one will be able to resist you in battle, because God is with you.[61]

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad#Non-Muslim_sources

        3/3

        All these sources say Muhammad (or Mahmet) with the last one.
        Given I am reading translations though. Do you dispute any of these writings say the name Muhammad? Because they definitely do in the translation here.

        also
        >their descriptions don't match that of the Muhammad we know through islamic sources
        There could be differences, but that doesn't mean Muhammad just didn't exist at all, just that later muslim sources contain some historical innacurracies.
        But so far they do seem to me to agree on the basic idea that he was an Arab war leader, whose followers later conquered Byzantine and Persian land. So they agree on basic facts about who Muhammad was.

  5. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    The Muhammad didn't exist shit is even sillier than the Jesus didn't exist crowd. We have numerous 7th century non-muslim sources that mention Muhammad.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >We have numerous 7th century non-muslim sources that mention Muhammad.
      Can you share them? I don't even know where to look for such things.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Sure. They're available on wiki:

        >There is a reference recording the Arab conquest of Syria (known as Fragment on the Arab Conquests), that mentions Muhammed. This much faded note is preserved on folio 1 of BL Add. 14,461, a codex containing the Gospel according to Matthew and the Gospel according to Mark. This note appears to have been penned soon after the battle of Gabitha (636 CE) at which the Arabs inflicted crushing defeat of the Byzantines.

        >… and in January, they took the word for their lives (did) [the sons of] Emesa [i.e., ̣Hiṃs)], and many villages were ruined with killing by [the Arabs of] Muḥammad and a great number of people were killed and captives [were taken] from Galilee as far as Bēth [...] and those Arabs pitched camp beside [Damascus?] [...] and we saw everywhe[re...] and o[l]ive oil which they brought and them. And on the t[wenty six]th of May went S[ac[ella]rius]... cattle [...] [...] from the vicinity of Emesa and the Romans chased them [...] and on the tenth [of August] the Romans fled from the vicinity of Damascus [...] many [people] some 10,000. And at the turn [of the ye]ar the Romans came; and on the twentieth of August in the year n[ine hundred and forty-]seven there gathered in Gabitha [...] the Romans and great many people were ki[lled of] [the R]omans, [s]ome fifty thousand [...][53]

        1/?

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >The 7th-century Chronicle of 640 was published by Wright who first brought to attention the mention of an early date of 947 AG (635–36 CE).[54] The contents of this manuscript has puzzled many scholars for their apparent lack of coherence as it contains an assembly of texts with diverse nature.[55] In relation to Arabs of Mohamed, there are two important dates mentioned in this manuscript.

          >AG 945, indiction VII: On Friday, 4 February, [i.e., 634 CE / Dhul Qa'dah 12 AH] at the ninth hour, there was a battle between the Romans and the Arabs of Muḥammad [Syr. tayyāyē d-Mḥmt] in Palestine twelve miles east of Gaza. The Romans fled, leaving behind the patrician YRDN (Syr. BRYRDN), whom the Arabs killed. Some 4000 poor villagers of Palestine were killed there, Christians, israelites and Samaritans. The Arabs ravaged the whole region. AG 947, indiction IX: The Arabs invaded the whole of Syria and went down to Persia and conquered it; the Arabs climbed mountain of Mardin and killed many monks there in [the monasteries of] Kedar and Benōthō. There died the blessed man Simon, doorkeeper of Qedar, brother of Thomas the priest.[56]

          It is the first date above which is of great importance as it provides the first explicit reference to Muhammad in a non-Muslim source. The account is usually identified with the battle of Dathin.[57] According to Hoyland, "its precise dating inspires confidence that it ultimately derives from first-hand knowledge".[58]

          2/3

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Another account of the early seventh century comes from Sebeos who was an Armenian bishop of the House of Bagratuni. His account indicates he was writing at a time when memories of sudden eruption of the Arabs were fresh. He knows Muhammad's name, that he was a merchant by profession, and hints that his life was suddenly changed by a divinely inspired revelation.[59] Sebeos is the first non-Muslim author to present a theory for the rise of Islam that pays attention to what the Muslims themselves thought they were doing.[60]

            >At that time a certain man from along those same sons of Ismael, whose name was Mahmet [i.e., Mụhammad], a merchant, as if by God's command appeared to them as a preacher [and] the path of truth. He taught them to recognize the God of Abraham, especially because he was learnt and informed in the history of Moses. Now because the command was from on high, at a single order they all came together in unity of religion. Abandoning their vain cults, they turned to the living God who had appeared to their father Abraham. So, Mahmet legislated for them: not to eat carrion, not to drink wine, not to speak falsely, and not to engage in fornication. He said: 'With an oath God promised this land to Abraham and his seed after him for ever. And he brought about as he promised during that time while he loved Israel. But now you are the sons of Abraham and God is accomplishing his promise to Abraham and his seed for you. Love sincerely only the God of Abraham, and go and seize the land which God gave to your father Abraham. No one will be able to resist you in battle, because God is with you.[61]

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad#Non-Muslim_sources

            3/3

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >The 7th-century Chronicle of 640 was published by Wright who first brought to attention the mention of an early date of 947 AG (635–36 CE).[54] The contents of this manuscript has puzzled many scholars for their apparent lack of coherence as it contains an assembly of texts with diverse nature.[55] In relation to Arabs of Mohamed, there are two important dates mentioned in this manuscript.

          >AG 945, indiction VII: On Friday, 4 February, [i.e., 634 CE / Dhul Qa'dah 12 AH] at the ninth hour, there was a battle between the Romans and the Arabs of Muḥammad [Syr. tayyāyē d-Mḥmt] in Palestine twelve miles east of Gaza. The Romans fled, leaving behind the patrician YRDN (Syr. BRYRDN), whom the Arabs killed. Some 4000 poor villagers of Palestine were killed there, Christians, israelites and Samaritans. The Arabs ravaged the whole region. AG 947, indiction IX: The Arabs invaded the whole of Syria and went down to Persia and conquered it; the Arabs climbed mountain of Mardin and killed many monks there in [the monasteries of] Kedar and Benōthō. There died the blessed man Simon, doorkeeper of Qedar, brother of Thomas the priest.[56]

          It is the first date above which is of great importance as it provides the first explicit reference to Muhammad in a non-Muslim source. The account is usually identified with the battle of Dathin.[57] According to Hoyland, "its precise dating inspires confidence that it ultimately derives from first-hand knowledge".[58]

          2/3

          >Another account of the early seventh century comes from Sebeos who was an Armenian bishop of the House of Bagratuni. His account indicates he was writing at a time when memories of sudden eruption of the Arabs were fresh. He knows Muhammad's name, that he was a merchant by profession, and hints that his life was suddenly changed by a divinely inspired revelation.[59] Sebeos is the first non-Muslim author to present a theory for the rise of Islam that pays attention to what the Muslims themselves thought they were doing.[60]

          >At that time a certain man from along those same sons of Ismael, whose name was Mahmet [i.e., Mụhammad], a merchant, as if by God's command appeared to them as a preacher [and] the path of truth. He taught them to recognize the God of Abraham, especially because he was learnt and informed in the history of Moses. Now because the command was from on high, at a single order they all came together in unity of religion. Abandoning their vain cults, they turned to the living God who had appeared to their father Abraham. So, Mahmet legislated for them: not to eat carrion, not to drink wine, not to speak falsely, and not to engage in fornication. He said: 'With an oath God promised this land to Abraham and his seed after him for ever. And he brought about as he promised during that time while he loved Israel. But now you are the sons of Abraham and God is accomplishing his promise to Abraham and his seed for you. Love sincerely only the God of Abraham, and go and seize the land which God gave to your father Abraham. No one will be able to resist you in battle, because God is with you.[61]

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad#Non-Muslim_sources

          3/3

          The sources I will reference are here:
          [...]
          [...]
          [...]
          All these sources say Muhammad (or Mahmet) with the last one.
          Given I am reading translations though. Do you dispute any of these writings say the name Muhammad? Because they definitely do in the translation here.

          also
          >their descriptions don't match that of the Muhammad we know through islamic sources
          There could be differences, but that doesn't mean Muhammad just didn't exist at all, just that later muslim sources contain some historical innacurracies.
          But so far they do seem to me to agree on the basic idea that he was an Arab war leader, whose followers later conquered Byzantine and Persian land. So they agree on basic facts about who Muhammad was.

          Much more interesting is the irrefutable fact that Mecca is never mentioned in any record until 741, even though the area was surrounded by many kingdoms and empires throughout history who meticulously and abundantly recorded every travel route and much less important cities like Najran. That's like italian records not mentioning Rome a single time for an entire millenia. Islamic history is a stinking pile of lies.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            So this doesn't address anything about whether Muhammad was a historical figure.
            Also, it seems to me that maybe later Muslims exaggerated the early importance of Mecca, because it was important for the early development of Islam, but this does not mean Mecca did not exist. Also, it appears that we do not have clear evidence Mecca did not exist pre-Islam, as we have potential disputed references to it.
            >Ptolemy lists the names of 50 cities in Arabia, one going by the name of Macoraba. There has been speculation since 1646 that this could be a reference to Mecca. Historically, there has been a general consensus in scholarship that Macoraba mentioned by Ptolemy in the 2nd century CE is indeed Mecca, but more recently, this has been questioned.[41][42] Bowersock favors the identity of the former, with his theory being that "Macoraba" is the word "Makkah" followed by the aggrandizing Aramaic adjective rabb (great). The Roman historian Ammianus Marcellinus also enumerated many cities of Western Arabia, most of which can be identified. According to Bowersock, he did mention Mecca as "Geapolis" or "Hierapolis", the latter one meaning "holy city" potentially referring to the sanctuary of the Kaaba.[43] Patricia Crone, from the Revisionist school of Islamic studies on the other hand, writes that "the plain truth is that the name Macoraba has nothing to do with that of Mecca [...] if Ptolemy mentions Mecca at all, he calls it Moka, a town in Arabia Petraea".[44] Recent research suggests that "Mecca was small" and the population of Mecca at the time of Muhammad was around 550.[45]

            So your statement that we have absolutely no references to it is false. It's more in the realm of some people dispute these references, and some people think they're legit. Hardly a solid case from to then claim it's proof Muhammad did not exist.

            Also, that summary is clearly not aimed attacking secular arguments, it's aimed at Muslims who believe the Quran is 100% accurate.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            So this doesn't address anything about whether Muhammad was a historical figure.
            Also, it seems to me that maybe later Muslims exaggerated the early importance of Mecca, because it was important for the early development of Islam, but this does not mean Mecca did not exist. Also, it appears that we do not have clear evidence Mecca did not exist pre-Islam, as we have potential disputed references to it.
            >Ptolemy lists the names of 50 cities in Arabia, one going by the name of Macoraba. There has been speculation since 1646 that this could be a reference to Mecca. Historically, there has been a general consensus in scholarship that Macoraba mentioned by Ptolemy in the 2nd century CE is indeed Mecca, but more recently, this has been questioned.[41][42] Bowersock favors the identity of the former, with his theory being that "Macoraba" is the word "Makkah" followed by the aggrandizing Aramaic adjective rabb (great). The Roman historian Ammianus Marcellinus also enumerated many cities of Western Arabia, most of which can be identified. According to Bowersock, he did mention Mecca as "Geapolis" or "Hierapolis", the latter one meaning "holy city" potentially referring to the sanctuary of the Kaaba.[43] Patricia Crone, from the Revisionist school of Islamic studies on the other hand, writes that "the plain truth is that the name Macoraba has nothing to do with that of Mecca [...] if Ptolemy mentions Mecca at all, he calls it Moka, a town in Arabia Petraea".[44] Recent research suggests that "Mecca was small" and the population of Mecca at the time of Muhammad was around 550.[45]

            So your statement that we have absolutely no references to it is false. It's more in the realm of some people dispute these references, and some people think they're legit. Hardly a solid case from to then claim it's proof Muhammad did not exist.

            Also, that summary is clearly not aimed attacking secular arguments, it's aimed at Muslims who believe the Quran is 100% accurate.

            Muslim history doesnt even have mecca being a super important city so what's the point of this argument in the first place?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Muslim history doesnt even have mecca being a super important city
            Yes it does.

            So this doesn't address anything about whether Muhammad was a historical figure.
            Also, it seems to me that maybe later Muslims exaggerated the early importance of Mecca, because it was important for the early development of Islam, but this does not mean Mecca did not exist. Also, it appears that we do not have clear evidence Mecca did not exist pre-Islam, as we have potential disputed references to it.
            >Ptolemy lists the names of 50 cities in Arabia, one going by the name of Macoraba. There has been speculation since 1646 that this could be a reference to Mecca. Historically, there has been a general consensus in scholarship that Macoraba mentioned by Ptolemy in the 2nd century CE is indeed Mecca, but more recently, this has been questioned.[41][42] Bowersock favors the identity of the former, with his theory being that "Macoraba" is the word "Makkah" followed by the aggrandizing Aramaic adjective rabb (great). The Roman historian Ammianus Marcellinus also enumerated many cities of Western Arabia, most of which can be identified. According to Bowersock, he did mention Mecca as "Geapolis" or "Hierapolis", the latter one meaning "holy city" potentially referring to the sanctuary of the Kaaba.[43] Patricia Crone, from the Revisionist school of Islamic studies on the other hand, writes that "the plain truth is that the name Macoraba has nothing to do with that of Mecca [...] if Ptolemy mentions Mecca at all, he calls it Moka, a town in Arabia Petraea".[44] Recent research suggests that "Mecca was small" and the population of Mecca at the time of Muhammad was around 550.[45]

            So your statement that we have absolutely no references to it is false. It's more in the realm of some people dispute these references, and some people think they're legit. Hardly a solid case from to then claim it's proof Muhammad did not exist.

            Also, that summary is clearly not aimed attacking secular arguments, it's aimed at Muslims who believe the Quran is 100% accurate.

            >So this doesn't address anything about whether Muhammad was a historical figure.
            People change subjects, you absolute autist. The argument about Macoraba is ridiculously weak, same as Bakka, and debunked in The Mecca Mystery.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Yes it does
            The narrative just has it relevant as a religious shrine for arabs. Seems like you constructed a strawman to attack

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The narrative just has it relevant as a religious shrine for arabs.
            Which is refuted by the fact it was supposedly under the quraysh tribe's authority, something impossible if it was a religious center. Moreover it was also supposed to be a trade center.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            ok, what I've read seems to agree that most scholar's think Mecca was a much smaller and unimportant town pre-Islam.
            Why does it not being a religious center and trade center mean that it didn't exist at all?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            That books seems seriously fringe. This guy doesn't seem to have a wiki, and all I can find in his bio is that he is an "independent researcher'. If this guy has any academic experience in this, he most likely just has a bachelor's in History or some other shit.
            Also the books seems entirely aimed at attacking traditional muslim beliefs about Islam, not scholarly views.

            Both these things make his book incredibly unlikely to be a thorough academia level critique of the historicity of Mecca.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            the entirety of your argument is the appeal to authority, like most Muslims so it’s not surprising you are being like this

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Academia has both who accept and critique islamic history. Stop being a schizo

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            k bro I can't actually address the arguments from the books since you haven't used them yourself, and I haven't read the books. From that all I can check is what credentials this guy has, and express my opinion on how legit the books looks from the summary. Just from reading the summary you can tell it's intended to be an anti-Islam book, not neutral scholarship considering both sides.

            Also, you are making an appeal to authority by bringing up this book without directly stating the arguments against Mecca being real.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm reading it and surprised by how little of it is new to me. (the biggest thing I didn't realize was how many smaller Arabian cities like Najran and Taif were well-documented in antiquity)
            it's a pop history/introductory version of what Crone and other revisionists have been arguing to a scholarly audience for decades, with added potshots at Islamic tradition.
            It's thorough and cites its sources and nothing about it so far strikes me as wrong.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      There's no rushdie in that pic. You're seeing things.
      [...]
      >We have numerous 7th century non-muslim sources that mention Muhammad.
      Those sources don't call him Muhammad and their descriptions don't match that of the Muhammad we know through islamic sources.

      Muhammad probably did exist but like many historical figures, most sources are after he lived

  6. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    it’s very strange that for a religion that puts such emphasis on text and literacy, that they wouldn’t write anything down for a century and a half. it’s just very strange.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Seems to me that originally they did not, they actually had a heavy emphasis on oral tradition, as the Quran was originally an oral tradition of sayings of Muhammad that his followers later wrote down, as well as with the Hadiths which were originally oral traditions.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        sounds like bullshit

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          quran literally means the "recitation". you think the recitation being an oral tradition sounds like bullshit?

          This isn't that different from how we got the sayings of Jesus in the gospels.

          And I'm not saying either of these accurately recorded Jesus or Muhammad's ideas, just that that is the process by which we got these texts.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >the religion we kill and risk our lives for? its sources are "trust me bro, my uncle heard so"
        sounds legit. even joseph smith made sure to write some shit down. why couldn't the proto-joseph smith of arabia do it?
        >inb4 he dictated the quran yadda yadda
        no proof of a quran existing until long after the death of this supposed muhamed

  7. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Do you have an peer reviewed academic sources backing the claims in these books?

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      those are academic works frickiing moron, they kicked lüling out of university for hurting sandBlack person feelings

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        You would be kicked out of university for being a drooling moron.

        The summary I mentioned here

        So this doesn't address anything about whether Muhammad was a historical figure.
        Also, it seems to me that maybe later Muslims exaggerated the early importance of Mecca, because it was important for the early development of Islam, but this does not mean Mecca did not exist. Also, it appears that we do not have clear evidence Mecca did not exist pre-Islam, as we have potential disputed references to it.
        >Ptolemy lists the names of 50 cities in Arabia, one going by the name of Macoraba. There has been speculation since 1646 that this could be a reference to Mecca. Historically, there has been a general consensus in scholarship that Macoraba mentioned by Ptolemy in the 2nd century CE is indeed Mecca, but more recently, this has been questioned.[41][42] Bowersock favors the identity of the former, with his theory being that "Macoraba" is the word "Makkah" followed by the aggrandizing Aramaic adjective rabb (great). The Roman historian Ammianus Marcellinus also enumerated many cities of Western Arabia, most of which can be identified. According to Bowersock, he did mention Mecca as "Geapolis" or "Hierapolis", the latter one meaning "holy city" potentially referring to the sanctuary of the Kaaba.[43] Patricia Crone, from the Revisionist school of Islamic studies on the other hand, writes that "the plain truth is that the name Macoraba has nothing to do with that of Mecca [...] if Ptolemy mentions Mecca at all, he calls it Moka, a town in Arabia Petraea".[44] Recent research suggests that "Mecca was small" and the population of Mecca at the time of Muhammad was around 550.[45]

        So your statement that we have absolutely no references to it is false. It's more in the realm of some people dispute these references, and some people think they're legit. Hardly a solid case from to then claim it's proof Muhammad did not exist.

        Also, that summary is clearly not aimed attacking secular arguments, it's aimed at Muslims who believe the Quran is 100% accurate.

        mentions scholars who disagree that Mecca existed or that Mecca was a city of any importance, so you're obviously talking out of your ass.

        Every moron with a moronic opinion thinks their moronic opinion isn't accepted by scholars because of some conspiracy to shut down dissent.
        It's pure cope for being a dumbfrick.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Do you have a source to confirm that? I'm sure there's plenty of disagreement within this field, but these books sound pretty fringe to me.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          why don’t you look it up yourself if you don’t believe it you lazy scumbag?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Not him, but I did look it up and only the syro aramaic reading book is maybe written by a scholar (it's anonymous).

            The rest are "independent researchers" who you can tell just from the book summaries have a hate boner for Islam, and that clearly motivates their work, as do you.

            This is not neutral, objective scholarship. It's books that seek to epically own Islam.

            Excluding the Syro Aramaic book. I'm actually interested in reading that one.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Because I expect people to be able to vouch for their own sources rather than sending me on a wild goose chase to see of they're legitimate.

  8. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'm an ex-Muslim, actually learning about Muhammad and early Islamic history was enough for me to realise that Islam is a false religion. The false prophet Muhammad Abdullah raped Aisha when she was 9 years old.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      can I start my own religion like muhammad where I take the stuff I like about islam and leave out the stuff like that has anyone ever tried that before?

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Everyone does that to some extent, since you can find hadiths to defend any opinion.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >In the ḥadīth from Ibn Abī Najīh, from his father, from Ḥuwayṭab b. ʿAbd al-ʿUzzā and other than him, [it is narrated that]:

          >”when it was the day of Mecca’s conquest, the Messenger of God entered the House of God [the Kaaba] and commanded that he be given a garment. He made it wet with water and commanded that the images inside the Kaaba be wiped out but he placed his hands on the image of Jesus and his mother and said: erase everything except for what is under my hands. Al-Azraqī narrated it.
          in what form of islam can one make jesus and mary icons? serious question, that’s the islam I want

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        What's the point? I converted to Christianity once I realized that Muhammad Abdullah was a pedophile rapist who lied about seeing the angel Gabriel, why make up your oen religion when there's already an established religion such as Christianity?

  9. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Was there ever anyone named Muhammad before this alleged prophet, and if so can this be historically attested?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *