It turns out that Mohammed's existence is under serious scrutiny. The first person to actually suggest there is no evidence for his existence but no evidence against it, leading to a kind of 'skeptical agnosticism' was actually a Muslim! That Muslim Scholar Declared: "Muhammad Probably Never Existed" back in 2008 or earlier. Of course he kept his identity a secret in case he got his head cut off. Islam doesn't like criticism.
So brother and sister great apes, if you have some spare time on your hands watch the following two Muslims try to defend the claim that Mohammed existed. These Muslims are the worse of the worst (so this is purely comical, but you still might learn a thing or two about Muslim mentality, and Spencer puts on a good show). In the question section I called in as the second caller (they called me Greg, my name is Derek, and I even spelt it for them! Gr), this is around 134-137 minutes, I tried to actually take on the role of what a Muslim debater ought to be showing.
If you don't have the time skip below this one.
Of course I am not going to leave you hanging, a more intelligent discussion took place. A debate took place between two Christians. Robert Spencer (anti-Islamist, liberal Roman Catholic) vs David Wood (evangelical Protestant). Spencer is arguing the Mohammed of Islam categorically did not exist. I think he does a fine job and hope (of course!) that they apply the same skepticism to Moses, Abraham etc. I also tried calling into this debate unsuccessfully, but I chuckled. While Wood put up a good show, my personal view is the weight of evidence is on the side of Spencer:
Well that's it, hope you enjoyed. Next time you encounter a Muslim, please don't take for granted even the most basic assumption that Muslims make. The evidence at most is highly dubious. If Mohammed existed and David Wood is right, these stories show evidence he could not have been a prophet. Either way we have significant problems.
No comments:
Post a Comment