Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


Gaza assault
January 18, 2025, 03:31 PM

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
January 18, 2025, 03:28 PM

New Britain
January 18, 2025, 09:01 AM

Lights on the way
by akay
January 17, 2025, 06:22 PM

Do humans have needed kno...
January 12, 2025, 09:05 AM

AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
January 09, 2025, 09:33 PM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
December 29, 2024, 12:03 PM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
December 29, 2024, 11:55 AM

News From Syria
by zeca
December 28, 2024, 12:29 AM

Mo Salah
December 26, 2024, 05:30 AM

What music are you listen...
by zeca
December 25, 2024, 10:58 AM

What's happened to the fo...
December 25, 2024, 02:29 AM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Islamic Theologian Says Prophet Muhammed Might Not Have Existed!

 (Read 4555 times)
  • 1« Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Islamic Theologian Says Prophet Muhammed Might Not Have Existed!
     OP - September 14, 2009, 09:24 PM

    I have suspected this and it has been a fleeting thought.

    Quote
    By ANDREW HIGGINS

    M?NSTER, Germany -- Muhammad Sven Kalisch, a Muslim convert and Germany's first professor of Islamic theology, fasts during the Muslim holy month, doesn't like to shake hands with Muslim women and has spent years studying Islamic scripture. Islam, he says, guides his life.

    So it came as something of a surprise when Prof. Kalisch announced the fruit of his theological research. His conclusion: The Prophet Muhammad probably never existed.
    Theology Without Muhammad

    Read a translated excerpt from "Islamic Theology Without the Historic Muhammad -- Comments on the Challenges of the Historical-Critical Method for Islamic Thinking" by Professor Kalisch.

    Muslims, not surprisingly, are outraged. Even Danish cartoonists who triggered global protests a couple of years ago didn't portray the Prophet as fictional. German police, worried about a violent backlash, told the professor to move his religious-studies center to more-secure premises.

    "We had no idea he would have ideas like this," says Thomas Bauer, a fellow academic at M?nster University who sat on a committee that appointed Prof. Kalisch. "I'm a more orthodox Muslim than he is, and I'm not a Muslim."

    When Prof. Kalisch took up his theology chair four years ago, he was seen as proof that modern Western scholarship and Islamic ways can mingle -- and counter the influence of radical preachers in Germany. He was put in charge of a new program at M?nster, one of Germany's oldest and most respected universities, to train teachers in state schools to teach Muslim pupils about their faith.

    Muslim leaders cheered and joined an advisory board at his Center for Religious Studies. Politicians hailed the appointment as a sign of Germany's readiness to absorb some three million Muslims into mainstream society. But, says Andreas Pinkwart, a minister responsible for higher education in this north German region, "the results are disappointing."

    Prof. Kalisch, who insists he's still a Muslim, says he knew he would get in trouble but wanted to subject Islam to the same scrutiny as Christianity and Judaism. German scholars of the 19th century, he notes, were among the first to raise questions about the historical accuracy of the Bible.

    Many scholars of Islam question the accuracy of ancient sources on Muhammad's life. The earliest biography, of which no copies survive, dated from roughly a century after the generally accepted year of his death, 632, and is known only by references to it in much later texts. But only a few scholars have doubted Muhammad's existence. Most say his life is better documented than that of Jesus.
    [Sven Muhammad Kalish]

    Muhammad Sven Kalish

    "Of course Muhammad existed," says Tilman Nagel, a scholar in G?ttingen and author of a new book, "Muhammad: Life and Legend." The Prophet differed from the flawless figure of Islamic tradition, Prof. Nagel says, but "it is quite astonishing to say that thousands and thousands of pages about him were all forged" and there was no such person.

    All the same, Prof. Nagel has signed a petition in support of Prof. Kalisch, who has faced blistering criticism from Muslim groups and some secular German academics. "We are in Europe," Prof. Nagel says. "Education is about thinking, not just learning by heart."

    Prof. Kalisch's religious studies center recently removed a sign and erased its address from its Web site. The professor, a burly 42-year-old, says he has received no specific threats but has been denounced as apostate, a capital offense in some readings of Islam.

    "Maybe people are speculating that some idiot will come and cut off my head," he said during an interview in his study.

    A few minutes later, an assistant arrived in a panic to say a suspicious-looking digital clock had been found lying in the hallway. Police, called to the scene, declared the clock harmless.

    A convert to Islam at age 15, Prof. Kalisch says he was drawn to the faith because it seemed more rational than others. He embraced a branch of Shiite Islam noted for its skeptical bent. After working briefly as a lawyer, he began work in 2001 on a postdoctoral thesis in Islamic law in Hamburg, to go through the elaborate process required to become a professor in Germany.

    The Sept. 11 attacks in the U.S. that year appalled Mr. Kalisch but didn't dent his devotion. Indeed, after he arrived at M?nster University in 2004, he struck some as too conservative. Sami Alrabaa, a scholar at a nearby college, recalls attending a lecture by Prof. Kalisch and being upset by his doctrinaire defense of Islamic law, known as Sharia.

    In private, he was moving in a different direction. He devoured works questioning the existence of Abraham, Moses and Jesus. Then "I said to myself: You've dealt with Christianity and Judaism but what about your own religion? Can you take it for granted that Muhammad existed?"

    He had no doubts at first, but slowly they emerged. He was struck, he says, by the fact that the first coins bearing Muhammad's name did not appear until the late 7th century -- six decades after the religion did.

    He traded ideas with some scholars in Saarbr?cken who in recent years have been pushing the idea of Muhammad's nonexistence. They claim that "Muhammad" wasn't the name of a person but a title, and that Islam began as a Christian heresy.

    Prof. Kalisch didn't buy all of this. Contributing last year to a book on Islam, he weighed the odds and called Muhammad's existence "more probable than not." By early this year, though, his thinking had shifted. "The more I read, the historical person at the root of the whole thing became more and more improbable," he says.

    He has doubts, too, about the Quran. "God doesn't write books," Prof. Kalisch says.

    Some of his students voiced alarm at the direction of his teaching. "I began to wonder if he would one day say he doesn't exist himself," says one. A few boycotted his lectures. Others sang his praises.

    Prof. Kalisch says he "never told students 'just believe what Kalisch thinks' " but seeks to teach them to think independently. Religions, he says, are "crutches" that help believers get to "the spiritual truth behind them." To him, what matters isn't whether Muhammad actually lived but the philosophy presented in his name.

    This summer, the dispute hit the headlines. A Turkish-language German newspaper reported on it with gusto. Media in the Muslim world picked up on it.

    Germany's Muslim Coordinating Council withdrew from the advisory board of Prof. Kalisch's center. Some Council members refused to address him by his adopted Muslim name, Muhammad, saying that he should now be known as Sven.

    German academics split. Michael Marx, a Quran scholar at the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences, warned that Prof. Kalisch's views would discredit German scholarship and make it difficult for German scholars to work in Muslim lands. But Ursula Spuler-Stegemann, an Islamic studies scholar at the University of Marburg, set up a Web site called solidaritymuhammadkalisch.com and started an online petition of support.

    Alarmed that a pioneering effort at Muslim outreach was only stoking antagonism, M?nster University decided to douse the flames. Prof. Kalisch was told he could keep his professorship but must stop teaching Islam to future school teachers.

    The professor says he's more determined than ever to keep probing his faith. He is finishing a book to explain his thoughts. It's in English instead of German because he wants to make a bigger impact. "I'm convinced that what I'm doing is necessary. There must be a free discussion of Islam," he says.


    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122669909279629451.html
  • Re: Islamic Theologian Says Prophet Muhammed Might Not Have Existed!
     Reply #1 - September 14, 2009, 09:39 PM

    If this turns out to be true, it would be the best thing that has happened to Islam. Imagine to not have to make up excuses for this cruel, greedy warlord but be able
    to focus on being good people instead.

    Well, I can hope can't I  Tongue
  • Re: Islamic Theologian Says Prophet Muhammed Might Not Have Existed!
     Reply #2 - September 14, 2009, 09:42 PM

    Below is an excerpt. The original is in german and in PDF format.

    Quote
    Below are translated excerpts from an article in German entitled, "Islamic Theology Without the Historic Muhammad -- Comments on the Challenges of the Historical-Critical Method for Islamic Thinking," by Germany's Prof. Muhammad Kalisch, a Muslim. (See related article.)
    [Professor Kalich]

    Muhammad Kalisch

    Up to some time ago I was convinced that Muhammad was a historical figure. Although I always based my thinking on the assumption that the Islamic historical narrative regarding Muhammad was very unreliable, I had no doubts that at least the basic lines of his biography were historically correct.

    I have now moved away from this position and will soon publish a book in which I will, among other things, comment on this question and explain my arguments in more detail. This essay is only a short summary of my most important arguments. It also deals with the question of what implications historical-critical research has for the Islamic theory and how I deal with my research results as a theologian.

    With regard to the historical existence of Muhammad ... I consider my position simply as a continuation of the most recent research results. It appears so spectacular only because it has been said by a Muslim ... Most Western scientists turn down such an hypotheses out of respect for Islam or because they are afraid of the reactions of their Muslim friends or because they think it is speculative nonsense.

    The word "respect" sounds wonderful but it is completely inappropriate here because one really refers to the opposite. Whoever thinks that Muslims can't deal with facts puts Muslims on the same level as small children who can't think and decide for themselves and whose illusions of Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny one doesn't want to destroy.

    Whoever really bases his thoughts on the equality of all human beings must expect the same intellectual performance. Really treating Muslims with respect would imply that they are strong enough to deal with their religion on the basis of our modern level of knowledge. "Islamophobes" think we Muslims are barbarians, the "kind-hearted" take us for "noble savages"... The result is the same: Muslims are seen as different from the rest of the world -- they either belong in a "petting zoo" or in cages for wild animals, but by all means they belong in a zoo.

    The final argument is even more awful because it can only be described as cowardly. Religious fundamentalists are spreading out (not only Islamic fundamentalist) and freedom of thought must be defended no matter what. There must not be any compromise on this otherwise we set the track for a retreat into the Middle Ages and this can happen much faster than many people think.

    My position with regard to the historical existence of Muhammad is that I believe neither his existence nor his non-existence can be proven. I, however, lean towards the non-existence but I don't think it can be proven. It is my impression that, unless there are some sensational archeological discoveries -- an Islamic "Qumran" or "Nag Hammadi" -- the question of Muhammad's existence will probably never be finally clarified.

  • Re: Islamic Theologian Says Prophet Muhammed Might Not Have Existed!
     Reply #3 - September 14, 2009, 09:44 PM

    "We had no idea he would have ideas like this,"   Cheesy

    "I'm a more orthodox Muslim than he is, and I'm not a Muslim."  Huh?

    'German academics split. Michael Marx, a Quran scholar at the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences, warned that Prof. Kalisch's views would discredit German scholarship and make it difficult for German scholars to work in Muslim lands.'  Undecided

    "We are in Europe," Prof. Nagel says. "Education is about thinking, not just learning by heart." Afro

    "God is a geometer" - Plato

    "God is addicted to arithmetic" - Sir James Jeans
  • Re: Islamic Theologian Says Prophet Muhammed Might Not Have Existed!
     Reply #4 - September 14, 2009, 09:44 PM

    This has got to be the most heretical thing I have ever heard. I remember when a German academic said that the Qur'an is not meant to be understood in arabic but in aramaic, I thought that was a bit outrageous but saying that Muhammad never existed is ridiculous!

    My point is, this will never ever go anywhere near the mainstream.

    Religion - The hot potato that looked delicious but ended up burning your mouth!

    Knock your head on the ground, don't be miserly in your prayers, listen to your Sidi Sheikh, Allahu Akbar! - Lounes Matoub
  • Re: Islamic Theologian Says Prophet Muhammed Might Not Have Existed!
     Reply #5 - September 14, 2009, 09:45 PM

    I need to get his paper, any one know if he wrote a book?

    Maliki yawm ul LULZ
  • Re: Islamic Theologian Says Prophet Muhammed Might Not Have Existed!
     Reply #6 - September 14, 2009, 09:54 PM

    It's in german. Aziz get us a translation sorted please?

    http://www.uni-muenster.de/imperia/md/content/religioesestudien/islam/_v/kalisch_islamische_theologie_ohne_historischen_muhammad.pdf
  • Re: Islamic Theologian Says Prophet Muhammed Might Not Have Existed!
     Reply #7 - September 15, 2009, 12:11 AM

    It's not awkward that he thinks Mohammed never existed(Highly unlikely, but could be true). What really is hilarious is that he still consider himself a Muslim  Cheesy

    "In every time and culture there are pressures to conform to the prevailing prejudices. But there are also, in every place and epoch, those who value the truth; who record the evidence faithfully. Future generations are in their debt." -Carl Sagan

  • Re: Islamic Theologian Says Prophet Muhammed Might Not Have Existed!
     Reply #8 - September 15, 2009, 12:43 AM

    Didn't Patricia Crone already explore this sort of thing in depth with Michael Cook before? Hagarology and all that?

    "At 8:47 I do a grenade jump off a ladder."
  • Re: Islamic Theologian Says Prophet Muhammed Might Not Have Existed!
     Reply #9 - September 15, 2009, 02:16 AM

    It's not awkward that he thinks Mohammed never existed(Highly unlikely, but could be true). What really is hilarious is that he still consider himself a Muslim  Cheesy


    "There is no go but Allah, and Mohammed wasn't his prophet"  parrot

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Islamic Theologian Says Prophet Muhammed Might Not Have Existed!
     Reply #10 - September 15, 2009, 03:10 AM

    So the denial of Mo's existance is present now, only so long until it's the denial of Allah's existance.  Wink
  • Re: Islamic Theologian Says Prophet Muhammed Might Not Have Existed!
     Reply #11 - September 15, 2009, 09:54 AM

    It's not awkward that he thinks Mohammed never existed(Highly unlikely, but could be true). What really is hilarious is that he still consider himself a Muslim  Cheesy



    I really don't get how this chap manages to convince himself that he's still a muslim after this heresy!

    I'm really not worried about his findings as someone who has had similar thoughts and because work like this has been done before by the likes of Patricia Crone and Michael Cook. You only need to pick up something like "The Quest For The Historical Muhammed" to see how much research has gone into the historicity of it.

    One of the main reasons for me leaving Islam was not just the content of the sources themselves, but the actual history and authenticity of the sources we have.

    The sources have to be judged against whatever is being claimed here, which is that Islam is a universal religion for ALL mankind till DOJ. The Quran is the final revelation. Muhammed is the infallible, universal and the seal of the  prophets. Now lets place that claim against what we have and what we know.

    1 - The Quran as a bound book was supposedly put together during the caliphate of Uthman who began his rule twelve years after the death of Muhammed. This is according to the majority (which comes from the sira and hadith to which I'll come to next). There is an opinion that the shia dispute this and say that there are two chapters missing. What must be taken into account is that all the stories about the compilation etc are coming through oral transmission noted down after the event is purpots to describe. The argument becomes circular!

    2 - The huge collection of hadith which were put together more than two centuries after the death of the Prophet. No matter how much ranting and shouting there is about "ilm-ar-rijal" and "isnaad" there is no escaping the fact that these accounts are not first and not even second hand! The sciences that the muslims talk about have evolved "after" the compilation of all this material and in order to make sense of it. Isnaad is really a trail of oral transmission tracing back to the Prophet. The issue here is firstly the story that is coming down the line itself. Is that true? The other issue is conflicting reports. No matter how you look at it, all the sciences of hadith came about after the compiling.

    Next is the problem of the hadith collection itself. The sunni's have their own body of text and the shia have their own. Each party claiming that their body is correct and accusing the other party of forgery. There is no way you can falsify one over the other.

    3 - The sira was written down about 130 years after the reported events, and even then this version (Ibn Ishaq) is only made reference to by Ibn Hisham. There have been many authors of sira, with Ibn Ishaq being the earliest. The problem we have with this, is that the time line between the event and the actual noting down of the material is very long. Here we are relying on the say so of scholars about the amazing memory of the Arabs and their ability to pass down information intact. Here the exmaple used is the one of the "Hafiz" of Quran. But then we have no way of falsifying whether they have learnt this art from the written down text itself or if it has been passed down orally.

    4 - Artefacts and hagiography. This is an area which I think is controversial. Simply because the Saudi government has resisted archeology in the past, therefor it is difficult to really find out the accuracy of it.

    The muslims tend to accuse western scholars of trying to discredit islam by doing this. But the way I look at it is that if it's so watertight, then why be hostile and show resistance? Let them get on with their work. If the conclusions are that Muhammed is a fictional person, then the underpinnings of islam will be severely shaken. The muslims may have to ask what else might be up for investigation? Whch is something they might not want to discover.

    The above is just my opinion. If anyone wants to add to this please feel free.
  • Re: Islamic Theologian Says Prophet Muhammed Might Not Have Existed!
     Reply #12 - September 15, 2009, 10:19 AM

    Funnily enough oral transmission of history can be surprisingly accurate over quite long periods of time, as long as the people involved think it is important to keep transferring things accurately. This is an important point. Obviously people can make stuff up at the drop of a hat too.

    In New Zealand Maori history was passed down orally (because they didn't have writing until the mid 19th century) and archaeologists have found that in general a lot of it seems to be surprisingly accurate even when describing events that took place up to a thousand years ago.

    Another point is that before the invention of the printing press texts were copied manually, and if you copy enough text manually often enough you will start to accumulate errors. Medieval European manuscripts have been studied for this sort of thing. In other words, written history is not necessarily more accurate.

    So when you consider that Arabic culture at the time had a strong tradition of oral history a hundred years or so isn't really that big a deal. Things could be preserved with surprising accuracy if, and this is the big thing, it was considered important to do this. If it was considered important to make things up for your own benefit then all bets are off.

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Islamic Theologian Says Prophet Muhammed Might Not Have Existed!
     Reply #13 - September 15, 2009, 01:51 PM

    This story of Muhammad Sven is not very recent i believe but anyhow great find Omar K. I don't doubt Muhammad's
    existence since he is probably one of the most biographed persons in history but I think there might be a bit of doubt over the way hadiths were compiled unless all those persons had really good memories - the basis of most of these transmissions is what these people heard which we all know this method has significant fallacies.

    Orthodox Muslims will definitely not want this guy, Sven, in the limelight or any of his works for that matter.

    "The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves."
  • Re: Islamic Theologian Says Prophet Muhammed Might Not Have Existed!
     Reply #14 - September 15, 2009, 01:55 PM

    This story of Muhammad Sven is not very recent i believe but anyhow great find Omar K. I don't doubt Muhammad's
    existence since he is probably one of the most biographed persons in history but I think there might be a bit of doubt over the way hadiths were compiled unless all those persons had really good memories - the basis of most of these transmissions is what these people heard which we all know this method has significant fallacies.

    Orthodox Muslims will definitely not want this guy, Sven, in the limelight or any of his works for that matter.


    Nevertheless, this chap should be left alone to carry out his research. The objective might not be fulfilled but he might discover other things which might give a better picture of Muhammed and his comapnions to what the orthodox generally believe.
  • Re: Islamic Theologian Says Prophet Muhammed Might Not Have Existed!
     Reply #15 - September 15, 2009, 05:16 PM



    I've taken a look at the essay. Translating that amount of text on my own would take a lot of time and effort. I'm sorry, I can't do that, unless you and/or other interested people here give me some kind of incentive, like money or something else...

    Here is an excerpt, I translated for ya:

    Quote from: Kalisch
    In his book, Jansen addresses the theory of the denial of the historicity of the Prophet Muhammad and notes the following:

    "However unlike what many Muslims think, most of the western scientists reject such hypotheses, out of respect for Islam, out of fear of the reaction from their Muslim friends or because they consider it speculative nonsense."

    If a scientist really considers this thesis to be nonsense, then he has to openly say that und bring forward his scientific arguments. There is absolutely no problem with this. Only through the open exchange of arguments can science advance. The other two arguments mentioned by Jansen, however, are scandalous.

    The word "respect" sounds wonderful, but it is completely out of place here, because actually the opposite is meant. Those who think that Muslims are not capable of dealing with the facts, are placing the Muslims on the same level as little infants, whose delusion about Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny you don't want to take away. Those who really set out from the thought of the equality of all humans, also have to trust that all humans can have the same intellectual capacities. It would be true respect for Muslims, to assume that they have the strength to deal with their religion on the basis of our modern state of knowledge. The "Islamophobes" think of us as barbarians, the "do-gooders" think of us as "noble savages." Ultimately, the conclusion does not differ. Muslims are different from the rest of humans and either belong in the children's zoo or in the carnivores' compound, in any case definitely in the zoo.

    Finally, the last argument is even more pathetic, because there is only one word for it: cowardice. Religious fundamentalism (not only Islamic!) is gaining ground and it is vital to defend freedom of thought against this at any price. At this point there must not be any compromises, otherwise the course will be set for a regression into the Middle Ages, and this can happen way faster than many of us can imagine.

    My position regarding the question of the historicity of Muhammad is, I think neither his existence nor his non-existence can be proven. Admittedly, I am leaning towards the non-existence, however I don't think it is provable. My impression is, provided that there will be no archeological discoveries causing a sensation in the future, an islamic "Qumran" or "Nag Hammadi", the question of the historical existence of Muhammad will probably never be resolved conclusively.


    German ex-Muslim forumMy YouTubeList of Ex-Muslims
    Wikis: en de fr ar tr
    CEMB-Chat
    I'm on an indefinite break...
  • Re: Islamic Theologian Says Prophet Muhammed Might Not Have Existed!
     Reply #16 - September 15, 2009, 06:02 PM

    erm... that part is already translated. dance but thx anyway.
  • Re: Islamic Theologian Says Prophet Muhammed Might Not Have Existed!
     Reply #17 - September 15, 2009, 07:10 PM

    Damnit, hehe. Well, I didn't waste my time, it was a good exercise! *positive thinking* Smiley

    German ex-Muslim forumMy YouTubeList of Ex-Muslims
    Wikis: en de fr ar tr
    CEMB-Chat
    I'm on an indefinite break...
  • Re: Islamic Theologian Says Prophet Muhammed Might Not Have Existed!
     Reply #18 - November 07, 2012, 01:08 PM

    *bump* for members who may have missed this


    "we can smell traitors and country haters"


    God is Love.
    Love is Blind. Stevie Wonder is blind. Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God.

  • Re: Islamic Theologian Says Prophet Muhammed Might Not Have Existed!
     Reply #19 - November 07, 2012, 02:10 PM


    Seriously, this guy needs to get translated into English fast.

    He says he's writing a book in English, hope he gets his skates on.


    "we can smell traitors and country haters"


    God is Love.
    Love is Blind. Stevie Wonder is blind. Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God.

  • Re: Islamic Theologian Says Prophet Muhammed Might Not Have Existed!
     Reply #20 - November 07, 2012, 04:44 PM

    We have hundreds of thousands of hadith, coming from over thirty thousand narrators, who relate back to the Prophet Muhammed (s). How could he not exist?
  • Re: Islamic Theologian Says Prophet Muhammed Might Not Have Existed!
     Reply #21 - November 07, 2012, 06:12 PM

    ^ I agree. There are many documented references to Ra, Baal, and Ahura Mazda throughout history. Therefore, they must exist.
  • 1« Previous thread | Next thread »