Did Muhammad exist as a real historical figure?

Andreas

Active member
Most people take the standard Islamic narrative as a hyped up version of a false prophet. But, there is no historical evidence that the "prophet Muhammad" even existed. At best there was some guy in the middle east that was a war lord in the 7th century and later Arabs (much later) needed a historical figure to pin a bunch of theology and made up miracles to. Do you agree?
 

cjab

Well-known member
Muhammed (the praiseworthy) was surely never his real name, as it is an afterwards given name. He was possibly called Marmet or something. However it is likely he did exist, because it is unlikely that his history could have been fabricated out of thin air in a literate world although he was illiterate. As for his theology: that is certainly open to debate. The Koran was put together by others after his death from disparate sources including Syriac documents crudely translated into Arabic. Some of it is unintelligible. Robert Spencer of jihadwatch has written a lot of books on this subject.
 

sk0rpi0n

Active member
. At best there was some guy in the middle east that was a war lord in the 7th century and later Arabs (much later) needed a historical figure to pin a bunch of theology and made up miracles to. Do you agree?

False.

Muhammad (PBUH) is arguably the most documented figure in all of human history. Even more so than Jesus; after all his own disciples decided not to document everything about him.

"Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." (John 21:25)

If you really think some nameless 7th century Arabs living in the middle of a desert conspired to create not only a fictional prophet but also a monotheistic religion with laws covering every aspect of life, then I just don't know what to tell you.
 
Last edited:

Andreas

Active member
False.

Muhammad (PBUH) is arguably the most documented figure in all of human history. Even more so than Jesus; after all his own disciples decided not to document everything about him.

"Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." (John 21:25)

If you really think some nameless 7th century Arabs living in the middle of a desert conspired to create not only a fictional prophet but also a monotheistic religion with laws covering every aspect of life, then I just don't know what to tell you.

There is no comparison between the quality of the historical references to Jesus and the Islamic prophet called Muhammad. First, Christianity has been under intense scrutiny by a host of generations of agnostics and unbelieving scholars for a couple centuries. The result? It has very much strengthened the historicity of Jesus from a secular scholarly point of view. These are scholars not arm-chair parrots that repeat nonsense they read on the internet. For the believer, it gives us a stronger basis to witness of the risen savior.

Now let's look at Islam. It is only within the present generation that a serious look at the historicity of Islam is being looked at methodically and even that is challenged by money and politics at the university level. For example, artists could mock Christ and be protected, while a drawing of Muhammad brings riots, censure, intimidation and worse. So, there is less freedom to honestly evaluate and report on the historicity of Islam from the university research level. The internet has changed that to some degree.

The result is that while tons have been written many centuries after the 7th century about Muhammad, there is nothing that dates to the 7th century. Nothing written by Muhammad, nothing written by any eyewitnesses, nothing written by any eyewitnesses of eyewitnesses. No Mecca to speak of in the 7th century, many different readings of the Koran, and a host of other problems.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BMS

sk0rpi0n

Active member
There is no comparison between the quality of the historical references to Jesus and the Islamic prophet called Muhammad.

There is no comparison because the quality and volume of material that has been recorded about Muhammad (pbuh) is greater than that of Jesus (pbuh) by orders of magnitude.


The result is that while tons have been written many centuries after the 7th century about Muhammad, there is nothing that dates to the 7th century.
Many centuries? The first biography of Muhammad was written by Ibn Ishaq in the mid 700s AD, only 100 something years after Muhammad's (pbuh) death. That biography were based on oral traditions that were in circulation since the time of the prophet.

An Armenian historian and a Christian bishop, Sebeos of Bagratunis who lived in the 7th century wrote about Muhammad (pbuh) and Islam:

"At that time a certain man from along those same sons of Ismael, whose name was Mahmed [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."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebeos

I'm pretty sure there were other 7th century Christians who were aware of Muhammad, even if they wrote of him negatively.


Nothing written by Muhammad,

Nothing written by Jesus (pbuh) either. Does that mean he never existed?

nothing written by any eyewitnesses, nothing written by any eyewitnesses of eyewitnesses.

Nothing written down by the disciples either, or the people who originally witnessed the life of Jesus. Does that mean Jesus never existed?

And no, the books attributed to "Matthew" and "John" were not written down by the disciples Matthew and John. We know this because they were Hebrew/Aramaic speakers and the modern NT is based off manuscripts written in Koine Greek (the language of the Romans who were occupying the Holy Land). That proves the manuscripts were originally written by Greek speaking converts FOR Greek speaking converts.


No Mecca to speak of in the 7th century, many different readings of the Koran, and a host of other problems.

empty claims.
 

cjab

Well-known member
There is no comparison because the quality and volume of material that has been recorded about Muhammad (pbuh) is greater than that of Jesus (pbuh) by orders of magnitude.
This is a non-sequitur. In fact there was originally so much written about Mahomet that it was plain that much of it was conflicting and unverifiable. Thus the material was deliberately synthesized into an authoritative whole and much discarded. Consequently no-one can have any real idea what is true and what is false.

Many centuries? The first biography of Muhammad was written by Ibn Ishaq in the mid 700s AD, only 100 something years after Muhammad's (pbuh) death. That biography were based on oral traditions that were in circulation since the time of the prophet.

An Armenian historian and a Christian bishop, Sebeos of Bagratunis who lived in the 7th century wrote about Muhammad (pbuh) and Islam:

"At that time a certain man from along those same sons of Ismael, whose name was Mahmed [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."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebeos

I'm pretty sure there were other 7th century Christians who were aware of Muhammad, even if they wrote of him negatively.
That he was a political player isn't really disputed. That Mahomatans renamed him Mụhammad is a monument to vanity. Reformation of idolatry does not warrant any place alongside Christ: the Jewish prophets had been doing it for centuries long before Mahomet.

Nothing written down by the disciples either, or the people who originally witnessed the life of Jesus. Does that mean Jesus never existed?

And no, the books attributed to "Matthew" and "John" were not written down by the disciples Matthew and John. We know this because they were Hebrew/Aramaic speakers and the modern NT is based off manuscripts written in Koine Greek (the language of the Romans who were occupying the Holy Land). That proves the manuscripts were originally written by Greek speaking converts FOR Greek speaking converts.
Empty claims. Just because they were Aramaic speakers didn't mean they didn't learn or know Greek. They all came to live outside their places of birth, in Greek speaking towns and places. Of course they would have learned and become fluent in Greek, had they not already known it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMS

Andreas

Active member
There is no comparison because the quality and volume of material that has been recorded about Muhammad (pbuh) is greater than that of Jesus (pbuh) by orders of magnitude.



Many centuries? The first biography of Muhammad was written by Ibn Ishaq in the mid 700s AD, only 100 something years after Muhammad's (pbuh) death. That biography were based on oral traditions that were in circulation since the time of the prophet.

An Armenian historian and a Christian bishop, Sebeos of Bagratunis who lived in the 7th century wrote about Muhammad (pbuh) and Islam:

"At that time a certain man from along those same sons of Ismael, whose name was Mahmed [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."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebeos

I'm pretty sure there were other 7th century Christians who were aware of Muhammad, even if they wrote of him negatively.




Nothing written by Jesus (pbuh) either. Does that mean he never existed?



Nothing written down by the disciples either, or the people who originally witnessed the life of Jesus. Does that mean Jesus never existed?

And no, the books attributed to "Matthew" and "John" were not written down by the disciples Matthew and John. We know this because they were Hebrew/Aramaic speakers and the modern NT is based off manuscripts written in Koine Greek (the language of the Romans who were occupying the Holy Land). That proves the manuscripts were originally written by Greek speaking converts FOR Greek speaking converts.




empty claims.
You said, "Nothing written down by the disciples either". This is not correct. The disciples traveled far, Peter and Paul were in Rome and John in Asia Minor and other places. Greek was a world language, so there is no reason they didn't learn it as missionaries today learn languages.

Here's a nice summary of some of it:

https://biblearchaeologyreport.com/2019/02/15/the-earliest-new-testament-manuscripts/

Your quote of Sebeos is interesting and something to be considered but doesn't say much. Perhaps there was a man with the name of Muhammad who did some sort of preaching, perhaps a type of Christian preacher even. It's all very obscure as to his name, who he was and what he did exactly. A preacher, a warlord of some kind whose life was loosely woven into a religious invention and then greatly embellished. The standard narrative is not sound as to this man, whoever he was, where he lived or what he did, and so it will be interesting to see what further historical analysis will show about the origins of Islam in the 8th and 9th centuries. You have some writings beginning a hundred years later by someone who was not a witness, or an eyewitness of an eyewitness but long removed from what he writes. A sort of Telephone Tag over a hundred years plus and over distant places.

You have no manuscripts or copies of manuscripts by those that lived close to the time of the events.
 
Last edited:

sk0rpi0n

Active member
That he was a political player isn't really disputed.
OP claimed there was nothing written about Muhammad (pbuh) in the 7th century, and I proved him wrong.

That Mahomatans renamed him Mụhammad is a monument to vanity.
What's a "Mahomatan"? "Muhammad" was his name. Nobody renamed him. I'm not interested in your conspiracy theories.

Just because they were Aramaic speakers didn't mean they didn't learn or know Greek.
Prove it.

They all came to live outside their places of birth, in Greek speaking towns and places. Of course they would have learned and become fluent in Greek, had they not already known it.

Again, prove it.

You're stuck with the Greek manuscripts so you're assuming that the apostles must have written in Greek. That's an after the fact rationalization.

You're also assuming the apostles heard /preached the gospels in one language and recorded it in another language (not just any language but the language of the pagans who were occupying their land).
 
Last edited:

sk0rpi0n

Active member
You said, "Nothing written down by the disciples either". This is not correct. The disciples traveled far, Peter and Paul were in Rome and John in Asia Minor and other places. Greek was a world language, so there is no reason they didn't learn it as missionaries today learn languages.

Greek was the lingua franca of the Roman empire, but the apostles were Israelites who were zealous for their faith. Hebrew was their liturgical language used by all their prophets. Since you're stuck with Greek manuscripts, you're assuming the apostles abandoned Hebrew and adopted a pagan language.

If at all the apostles wrote anything, it would have been in Hebrew or Aramaic. Since there are no Hebrew/Aramaic NT manuscripts, we can assume

A. The gospel was never written in Hebrew/Aramaic.
B. It was written in Hebrew/Aramaic but they are lost forever.

Whatever the case is, tough luck.

Having gotten that out of the way, the realistic explanation is that the disciples made converts in Greek speaking areas and then those converts wrote down whatever they remembered in Greek for the purpose of circulating it among other Greek speakers. Those documents survived and became the basis of "Matthew", "Mark", "Luke" and "John".

Your quote of Sebeos is interesting and something to be considered but doesn't say much. Perhaps there was a man with the name of Muhammad who did some sort of preaching, perhaps a type of Christian preacher even
LOL. You clamed there's nothing written about Muhammad that dates to the 7th century. I disproved you by showing you Sebeos of Bagratunis.
And you're response is "oh perhaps that was some other man named Muhammad...it doesn't say much".

Laughable.

What if perhaps ALL the historical reports of Jesus presented by your "scholars" are about some other man named "Jesus" who did some sort of preaching... but it wasn't THE Jesus we know of from the gospels.
 

cjab

Well-known member
OP claimed there was nothing written about Muhammad (pbuh) in the 7th century, and I proved him wrong.
We're not clear anything was written down in the "7th" century.

What's a "Mahomatan"? "Muhammad" was his name. Nobody renamed him. I'm not interested in your conspiracy theories.
You've already said his name was Mahmed, which isn't Muhammed. Others call him Mahmet. Personally. I'd call him Marmite. It's as good as any.

Prove it.



Again, prove it.

You're stuck with the Greek manuscripts so you're assuming that the apostles must have written in Greek. That's an after the fact rationalization.

You're also assuming the apostles heard /preached the gospels in one language and recorded it in another language (not just any language but the language of the pagans who were occupying their land).
You're the one raising contentions. It's up to you to substantiate them.
 

Andreas

Active member
Greek was the lingua franca of the Roman empire, but the apostles were Israelites who were zealous for their faith. Hebrew was their liturgical language used by all their prophets. Since you're stuck with Greek manuscripts, you're assuming the apostles abandoned Hebrew and adopted a pagan language.

If at all the apostles wrote anything, it would have been in Hebrew or Aramaic. Since there are no Hebrew/Aramaic NT manuscripts, we can assume

A. The gospel was never written in Hebrew/Aramaic.
B. It was written in Hebrew/Aramaic but they are lost forever.

Whatever the case is, tough luck.

Having gotten that out of the way, the realistic explanation is that the disciples made converts in Greek speaking areas and then those converts wrote down whatever they remembered in Greek for the purpose of circulating it among other Greek speakers. Those documents survived and became the basis of "Matthew", "Mark", "Luke" and "John".


LOL. You clamed there's nothing written about Muhammad that dates to the 7th century. I disproved you by showing you Sebeos of Bagratunis.
And you're response is "oh perhaps that was some other man named Muhammad...it doesn't say much".

Laughable.

What if perhaps ALL the historical reports of Jesus presented by your "scholars" are about some other man named "Jesus" who did some sort of preaching... but it wasn't THE Jesus we know of from the gospels.

Your argument against the authenticity of the apostles writing and their associates seems to be that since they were Jews they didn't learn Greek! Your argument goes against hundreds of years of critical scholarship by unbelievers, skeptics and Christians. The burning of Rome in the AD 60's was blamed on Christians by Caesar Nero and this was within 30 years of the Jesus' ministry. How do you have Christian converts in Rome unless the early followers of Christ preached there way before they got blamed on the fire? The letters of Paul, a Jew, were written in Greek and addressed specifically to Greek churches within 25 years of Jesus' ministry. The context of early Christianity is firmly established by a vast plethora of historical events, people, places, and manuscripts within the 1st and 2nd centuries and its spread is documented from 30 AD and forward.

What you've presented is a vague quote by Sebeos about a "Mahmed". What evidence do you have that this person is the Muhammad that was born is Mecca and was your prophet?
 

sk0rpi0n

Active member
Your argument against the authenticity of the apostles writing and their associates seems to be that since they were Jews they didn't learn Greek!

Your argument rests on the assumption that the apostles abandoned Hebrew, their liturgical language, and adopted Greek, the language of the pagans who were occupying their land.

Like I said, since all you have are Greek manuscripts, you're simply assuming the apostles wrote in Greek. That's a circular argument. You're basically saying "The gospels are in Greek. Therefore the apostles must have learned to read and write Greek".

The more straightforward is that the Greek manuscripts that survive today were written by Greek speaking converts for circulation among Greek speaking converts.


What evidence do you have that this person is the Muhammad that was born is Mecca and was your prophet?

What evidence do you have that the Jesus that your secular scholars spoke of is the one that was born in Bethlehem and is your lord and saviour?

See, I can play your games as well.
 

sk0rpi0n

Active member
We're not clear anything was written down in the "7th" century.

But you're absolutely certain that the gospels were written down in the 1st century, eh?

You've already said his name was Mahmed, which isn't Muhammed. Others call him Mahmet.

I didn't say his name was "Mahmed". I was quoting Sebeos of Bagratunis who, in his language, addressed the prophet as "Mahmed".

You're the one raising contentions. It's up to you to substantiate them.

You're the one making the claim that the apostles preached in Aramaic but wrote in Greek. It's up to you to substantiate your claim.
 

Andreas

Active member
Your argument rests on the assumption that the apostles abandoned Hebrew, their liturgical language, and adopted Greek, the language of the pagans who were occupying their land.

Like I said, since all you have are Greek manuscripts, you're simply assuming the apostles wrote in Greek. That's a circular argument. You're basically saying "The gospels are in Greek. Therefore the apostles must have learned to read and write Greek".

The more straightforward is that the Greek manuscripts that survive today were written by Greek speaking converts for circulation among Greek speaking converts.




What evidence do you have that the Jesus that your secular scholars spoke of is the one that was born in Bethlehem and is your lord and saviour?

See, I can play your games as well.

You're simply not connected to Biblical scholarship so what you are saying is out in left field. Where to begin? I guess if you were sincere I would direct you to the writings or videos of Josh McDowell or Gary Habermas about the reliability of the Bible and the resurrection of Christ. I will say, the secular references to Jesus include ties to his Christian followers so it is plain. Your quote gives a name of sorts and doesn't tie the name to Islam directly, right? Why the use of the name "Mahmed" rather than Muhammad? The activity surrounding Islam and its beginnings seems to kick off decades and centuries after "Muhammad" and there are no direct writings by anybody close to the "Muhuammad" or whatever this individuals name was. It seems like he is to Arabs what Paul Bunyan is to American and Canadian history.
 
Last edited:

sk0rpi0n

Active member
You're simply not connected to Biblical scholarship so what you are saying is out in left field.

And you're simply not connected to Islamic scholarship so what you are saying is out in left field.

I guess if you were sincere

If you were sincere, you wouldn't dismiss a clear 7th century account of Muhammad as being about some other man named "Muhammad".

I would direct you to the writings or videos of Josh McDowell or Gary Habermas about the reliability of the Bible and the resurrection of Christ.

And I could direct you to the writings and videos of Islamic scholars about the historicity of Muhammad. What's the point?

Your quote gives a name of sorts and doesn't tie the name to Islam directly, right?

Wrong. It absolutely is talking about Muhammad in connection to Islam.

Read his quote again:

"At that time a certain man from along those same sons of Ismael, whose name was Mahmed [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."

If you claim Sebeos was talking about some other man named "Muhammad", then you are simply not discussing in good faith.

If that's the route you want to take in this thread, then the "Jesus" your secular scholars speak of was some other man named "Jesus", and not the Jesus of the gospels.
 

Andreas

Active member
And you're simply not connected to Islamic scholarship so what you are saying is out in left field.



If you were sincere, you wouldn't dismiss a clear 7th century account of Muhammad as being about some other man named "Muhammad".



And I could direct you to the writings and videos of Islamic scholars about the historicity of Muhammad. What's the point?



Wrong. It absolutely is talking about Muhammad in connection to Islam.

Read his quote again:

"At that time a certain man from along those same sons of Ismael, whose name was Mahmed [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."

If you claim Sebeos was talking about some other man named "Muhammad", then you are simply not discussing in good faith.

If that's the route you want to take in this thread, then the "Jesus" your secular scholars speak of was some other man named "Jesus", and not the Jesus of the gospels.

I'm claiming that this reference is vague. It's odd that this "Mahmed" is against fornication and lying so how could he be the founder of Islam?
 

sk0rpi0n

Active member
I'm claiming that this reference is vague

You're just making claims without providing any supporting evidence or reasoning.

It's odd that this "Mahmed" is against fornication and lying so how could he be the founder of Islam?

The "Mahmed" that Sebeos wrote about is Muhammad (pbuh). "Mahmed" is "Muhammad" in whatever language that Sebeos spoke.

you know as well as I do that names take on different forms in different languages. For example. the common English name "John" becomes "Gianni" in Italian, "Ivan" in Russian, "Jovan" in Serbian, "Ian" in Gaelic and so on. So lets not split hairs over how Sebeos spelled Muhammad's name.

As for fornication and lying, Muhammad prohibited it.
 
Last edited:

Andreas

Active member
You're just making claims.



The "Mahmed" that Sebeos wrote about is Muhammad (pbuh). "Mahmed" is "Muhammad" in whatever language that Sebeos spoke.

you know as well as I do that names take on different forms in different languages. For example. the common English name "John" becomes "Gianni" in Italian, "Ivan" in Russian, "Jovan" in Serbian, "Ian" in Gaelic and so on. So lets not split hairs over how Sebeos spelled Muhammad's name.

As for fornication and lying, Muhammad prohibited it.

But lying and fornication are promoted by Muslims. Aren't there certain circumstances were bold face lying is accepted and raping woman and children is recommended by Mahmed or was that the 9th century founders of Islam only?
 

sk0rpi0n

Active member
But lying and fornication are promoted by Muslims

Wrong.
The only countries in the world where fornication is a punishable offense are Muslim countries.

Are there certain circumstances were bold face lying is accepted

You mean "bold face lying" like when Peter lied to save himself and was not rebuked by Jesus?
Or when the midwives lied to save the Israelite infants from the Pharaoh and were rewarded by God?
Or when Rahab lied to save the Israelite soldiers and was not punished by God?

I'm not sure what you mean by "bold face lying". Please clarify.

That said, in Islam, lying to deceive an innocent person or lying to deny a truth after being shown it (like you just did earlier) is a grave sin and will be repaid by God either here or in the afterlife.

and raping woman and children is recommended by Mahmed?

No. Stop making ridiculous claims.
 

Andreas

Active member
Wrong.
The only countries in the world where fornication is a punishable offense are Muslim countries.



You mean "bold face lying" like when Peter lied to save himself and was not rebuked by Jesus?
Or when the midwives lied to save the Israelite infants from the Pharaoh and were rewarded by God?
Or when Rahab lied to save the Israelite soldiers and was not punished by God?

I'm not sure what you mean by "bold face lying". Please clarify.

That said, in Islam, lying to deceive an innocent person or lying to deny a truth after being shown it (like you just did earlier) is a grave sin and will be repaid by God either here or in the afterlife.



No. Stop making ridiculous claims.

Rape of Muslim women is against Islamic law - although the rape of non-Muslim women is not, if they are 'captured in battle' or bought as slaves. Technically, a Muslim woman can be raped if she is a slave who converted to Islam after her capture.​


Even the rape of a free Muslim woman is almost impossible to prove under strict Islamic law (Sharia). If the man claims that the act was consensual sex, there is little that the woman can do to refute this. Islam places the burden of avoiding sexual encounters of any sort on the woman and her male guardians.

Quran​

Quran (2:282) - Establishes that a woman's testimony is worth only half that of a man's in court - or less, given that one male witness is preferable to two female (there is no "he said/she said" gridlock in Islam).
Quran (24:4) - "And those who accuse free women then do not bring four witnesses, flog them..." Strictly speaking, this verse addresses adultery (revealed at the very time that Muhammad's favorite wife was being accused of adultery on the basis of only three witnesses coincidentally enough). However it is a part of the theological underpinning of the Sharia rule on rape, since strict Islamic law does not recognize rape if there are not four male witnesses or a confession.
Quran (24:13) - "Why did they not bring four witnesses of it? But as they have not brought witnesses they are liars before Allah."
Quran (2:223) - "Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will..." There is no such thing as rape in marriage, as a man is permitted unrestricted sexual access to his wives.

Hadith and Sira​

Sahih Bukhari (5:59:462) - The background for the Quranic requirement of four witnesses to adultery. Muhammad's favorite wife, Aisha, was accused of cheating [on her polygamous husband]. Three witnesses corroborated the event, but Muhammad apparently did not want to believe it, and so established the arbitrary rule that four witnesses are required.


This is off topic as I didn't want to get into the gross sexual and violent moral failings promoted by Islam. My theory at this time is that the Arabs in the 9th century took an obscure guy and started to make him into a legend and embellished his life and teachings in order to justify their wicked treatment of woman and unify their growing evil empire with one religion. This is why Islam was started more as a political type made up religion and continues to be very political.
 
Top