By Rich Kozlovich
I have known about this for some time, but I have deliberately shied away from it because I just don’t have much confidence in historical deconstructionists and “higher criticisms” because they seem to be mostly nitpicking with a goal. Much like scientific studies that are more conclusions in search of data than a search for truth.
There are those who claim that Moses didn’t write the Pentateuch, for among other reasons, he used different words at different parts of the Pentateuch. “The differences in style as suggested by the JEDP Theory of Documentary Hypothesis are easily explained even with examples of modern literature where authors change style according to subject matter. There is also substantial unity in the documents which cannot be explained by multiple authors of vastly different time periods.” I have used different words as I grew older and Moses is reported to have lived for 120 years.
All the criticisms have been largely dismissed by reasonable people. “The evidence, together with clear statements in the texts themselves point to Moses as the author and final editor in the case of Genesis, of the first five books of the Bible.”
There are those who have criticized Biblical historicity for decades because “leading scholars” had no archeological information to substantiate statements in “The Book”. As the years have gone by each of the claims made against Biblical historicity has fallen. There is still controversy about Jericho, however in the seventies the absolute historicity of Sodom and Gomorrah was established after they broke into a chamber filled with clay receipts mentioning those cities. Apparently they already had large commercial dealings with Babylon and the rest of the Middle East. Based on “archeological” history; I think we will find the answer to Jericho also.
This brings me back to the point. Did Mohammad actually live? In England a scholar named Tom Holland had a documentary presented on British TV called the “Untold Story” that says that there is absolutely no evidence that he did.
“Since it was screened last week, presenter Tom Holland, a historian with a double first from Cambridge, has been subjected to a torrent of abusive tweets, some of which have included physical threats.”….”Untold Story has triggered nearly 550 complaints to both the television regulator Ofcom and Channel 4 itself. ……It has also sparked a bitter war of words on Twitter involving leading historians and Islamic scholars.”
Mr. Holland said: ‘The origins of Islam are a legitimate subject of historical inquiry and this film is wholly in keeping with other series and programmes on Channel 4. Historians have rallied to Mr. Holland’s defence…..One persons described “the programme as ‘a triumph’, tweeting: ‘Dear angry, mad people – it is conceivable that you know more than the world’s leading scholars, but very unlikely.’”
I believe that research on this subject is absolute worthy of scholarly inquiry. I believe that programming on this subject is worthy to be presented. If it is acceptable to do so for other religions it certainly is acceptable to do so regarding Islam. So what is the big difference?
The BIG difference is that Islamists have the tendency to kill those who say things they don’t like.
The BIG difference is that Islamists have the tendency to kill those who say things they don’t like.
One of their own, Salmon Rushdie, incurred the absolute wrath of Muslims worldwide for writing “The Satanic Verses” in 1988. Death threats were made against him, including a death sentence issued by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the Supreme Leader of Iran, on 14 February 1989, and set a $5.2 million bounty on Rushdie's head.”
“Radio Tehran went on, declaring in the Iranian government's name Feb. 15, 1989 a "day of national mourning . . . in protest against the new conspiracy of the great Satan (the United States) to publish poisonous and insulting subject-matter concerning Islam, the Koran and the blessed prophet." Within 72 hours, six people died and more than 160 were wounded in violent demonstrations against the book in Pakistan and India.”
Now back to Holland’s claim that there is no evidence that Mohammad ever lived. I can’t say either way, but I find it difficult to believe such a large movement could have sprung up overnight, and created an empire of loosely united kingdoms that "in fewer than one hundred years stretched from the Iberian Peninsula to India", and there was no one in charge at the beginning of it all.
If we accept the idea Mohammad didn't exist, then we have to believe that all of this was accomplished by a conspiracy so enormous as to unhinge the imagination. That is far too irrational and incomprehensible to be believed. Clearly, we need to be able attach a valid scientific explanation for all of this. I would use Occam's Razor. "The simplest explanation is probably the correct one."
If we accept the idea Mohammad didn't exist, then we have to believe that all of this was accomplished by a conspiracy so enormous as to unhinge the imagination. That is far too irrational and incomprehensible to be believed. Clearly, we need to be able attach a valid scientific explanation for all of this. I would use Occam's Razor. "The simplest explanation is probably the correct one."
As for the claim that it is unlikely that others “know” more than the leading scholar on the subject - that is a logical fallacy known as “Appeal to Authority”, and authorities have been proven to be …..well…. really stupid in the past.
So, am I defending the Islamists? No! What I am saying is that Islam isn’t a “made-up religion” as stated. I’m saying that Islam isn’t a religion at all. When a “religion” requires its adherents to kill, rape and rob in the name of their faith then it isn’t a religion; it is a criminal organization masquerading as a religion. No less so than the Thuggee of India, which was a gang of murderers and thieves who “would join travelers and gain their confidence. This would allow them to then surprise and strangle them by tossing a handkerchief or noose around their necks. The killings were performed in honour of the goddess Kali and were very ritualistic. They would then rob the bodies of valuables and bury them.” “In the 1830s they were targeted by William Bentinck, along with his chief captain William Henry Sleeman, for eradication. They were seemingly destroyed by this effort.” They were defined and recognized for what they were by their actions. Thieves and murders!
Religions that promote violence as a part of their credo will eventually incur violence in opposition to their credo. In Muslim controlled countries we see those who profess to be Jews, Christians, and even different Muslim sects, being murdered by the local population for their beliefs; clearly with the spoken or unspoken approval of the ruling authorities. This kind of madness cannot exist in a vacuum. Eventually opposition forces will gain arms and expertise to defend themselves and to attack their opponents; much like what occurred in Lebanon in the 1970’s and 1980’s. All of this internal criminality is one of the reasons their economies are a mess. Take away the oil and they would revert to Middle Age cultures all over again.
I almost wish that they could prove that Mohammad really didn't exist and that Islam is a made up religion; then maybe people would regain their sanity and stop the slaughter of so many innocent people.
Editor's Note: You may wish to peruse the following material.
###
No comments:
Post a Comment