Islamic Theologian's Theory: It's Likely the Prophet Muhammad Never Existed

MÜNSTER, 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.
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.

…
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.




Oh, dear… Continue reading at the Wall Street Journal
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122669909279629451.html

One would wonder whom he is named after then?

Saying that the Prophet (sws) did not exist, in turn says the Qu'ran does not exist, and that the Islamic conception of God is false.

Who is this man? One who claims his religion is a lie and yet still calls himself Muslim? Completely illogical and fallacious, I have never seen a single chronicler, Christian, Jewish or Atheist, in the entire history that I have studied that has made such a claim. How would there be Byzantine sources from the time describing emissaries sent to him(sws).

May Allah (swt) guide him and me both for God knows and we know not.

Rintrah wrote on Nov 17^th, 2008 at 3:58pm:

... Saying that the Prophet (sws) did not exist, in turn says the Qu'ran does not exist, and that the Islamic conception of God is false....

Not really. More likely it says that the man who had written the book isn't prophet. On another hand even if he was a prophet the words could've come from Shaitan not from God. The reality is you can not proof it either way so you just have to believe and that is not illogical at all... and nor circular arguments please we already agreed that they are not valid.

Quote:

Not really. More likely it says that the man who had written the book isn't prophet. On another hand even if he was a prophet the words could've come from Shaitan not from God. The reality is you can not proof it either way so you just have to believe and that is not illogical at all... and nor circular arguments please we already agreed that they are not valid.

Indeed it is a circular argument, on your side as much as mine. It comes down to belief. If one believes the majority of sources both on the side of the Muslims and on the side of their enemies (the Byzantine empire for example) or alternatively if one chooses to abandon the vast array of evidence and simply say that an illiterate trader could somehow write the most miraculous peace of Arabic poetry ever created (on his own) and then manage to (on his own) become classified as the most succesful human being in history by hundreds of non-Muslim chroniclers. One can assume anything they like upon anything they like. The choice between belief in God and disbelief in God being a question that has to be answered without conclusive proof either way.

However in this case, the question 'was Mohammed (sws) a real person' has a giant weight of facts and historical documentation on one side, and the musings of a single man living 1500+ years later on the other. You choose whom to believe.

Rintrah wrote on Nov 17^th, 2008 at 4:34pm:

Quote: Not really. More likely it says that the man who had written the book isn't prophet. On another hand even if he was a prophet the words could've come from Shaitan not from God. The reality is you can not proof it either way so you just have to believe and that is not illogical at all... and nor circular arguments please we already agreed that they are not valid. Indeed it is a circular argument, on your side as much as mine. It comes down to belief. If one believes the majority of sources both on the side of the Muslims and on the side of their enemies (the Byzantine empire for example) or alternatively if one chooses to abandon the vast array of evidence and simply say that an illiterate trader could somehow write the most miraculous peace of Arabic poetry ever created (on his own) and then manage to (on his own) become classified as the most succesful human being in history by hundreds of non-Muslim chroniclers. One can assume anything they like upon anything they like. The choice between belief in God and disbelief in God being a question that has to be answered without conclusive proof either way. However in this case, the question 'was Mohammed (sws) a real person' has a giant weight of facts and historical documentation on one side, and the musings of a single man living 1500+ years later on the other. You choose whom to believe.

Please point out where exactly I use circular argument.
I am talking about possibilities only. I am not saying that God exist or vice verse. But I do disagree with the statement that "The choice between belief in God and disbelief in God being a question that has to be answered" as we agreed that it is impossible to prove.

BTW, "the question 'was Mohammed (sws) a real person'" has high probability "yeas" for answer, please note that here I talk about probability not possibility as possibility for "no" answer still exist but with smaller probability then "yes".

Quote:

More likely it says that the man who had written the book isn't prophet. On another hand even if he was a prophet the words could've come from Shaitan not from God.

This statement is exactly the same as the one made by me:

Quote:

Saying that the Prophet (sws) did not exist, in turn says the Qu'ran does not exist, and that the Islamic conception of God is false.

I am confused about your conception of a circular argument, if I used your terminology it reflects this, I said the same thing you said, but with the opposite perspective, and therefore if my argument in your mind is circular, so then is yours.

Rintrah wrote on Nov 17^th, 2008 at 7:19pm:

Quote: More likely it says that the man who had written the book isn't prophet. On another hand even if he was a prophet the words could've come from Shaitan not from God. This statement is exactly the same as the one made by me: [quote] Saying that the Prophet (sws) did not exist, in turn says the Qu'ran does not exist, and that the Islamic conception of God is false.

I am confused about your conception of a circular argument, if I used your terminology it reflects this, I said the same thing you said, but with the opposite perspective, and therefore if my argument in your mind is circular, so then is yours.[/quote]

It is not the same. You state that there is no Prophet then there is no Koran while I say that Koran is there but it could've been written by a man who was not the Prophet.

Your confusion is due to your hastiness to dive in complexity before learning basics like for example fallacy of circular argument.

Quote:

It is not the same. You state that there is no Prophet then there is no Koran while I say that Koran is there but it could've been written by a man who was not the Prophet. Your confusion is due to your hastiness to dive in complexity before learning basics like for example fallacy of circular argument.

Well considering that the Qu'ran is considered the word of God, then without the Prophet (sws) to convey it, it would no longer be the word of God.. and would become merely words. Which in turn would make it a 'Qitab' rather than the 'Qu'ran'. As the word 'Qu'ran' refers to that recited from God to Mohammed (sws) rather than simply a book. Lose the transmission, the word, the book and the legitimacy of the message is in turn lost.


Quote:

Your confusion is due to your hastiness to dive in complexity before learning basics like for example fallacy of circular argument.

Some of my confusion may stem from your sentence structure. Otherwise, my points stand.

Rintrah wrote on Nov 17^th, 2008 at 8:57pm:

Quote: It is not the same. You state that there is no Prophet then there is no Koran while I say that Koran is there but it could've been written by a man who was not the Prophet. Your confusion is due to your hastiness to dive in complexity before learning basics like for example fallacy of circular argument. Well considering that the Qu'ran is considered the word of God, then without the Prophet (sws) to convey it, it would no longer be the word of God.. and would become merely words. Which in turn would make it a 'Qitab' rather than the 'Qu'ran'. As the word 'Qu'ran' refers to that recited from God to Mohammed (sws) rather than simply a book. Lose the transmission, the word, the book and the legitimacy of the message is in turn lost. [quote]Your confusion is due to your hastiness to dive in complexity before learning basics like for example fallacy of circular argument.

Some of my confusion may stem from your sentence structure. Otherwise, my points stand.[/quote]

Legitimacy of the book as divine may be lost if there is nothing behind the words but book still would be here, e.g. the book of Darwin isn't claimed to be divine but it is still inspire majority of biology scientists.

Quote:

Legitimacy of the book as divine may be lost if there is nothing behind the words but book still would be here, e.g. the book of Darwin isn't claimed to be divine but it is still inspire majority of biology scientists.

Probably nitpicking here but evolutionary theory has gone well beyond Darwin now.

The entire point is that the Qu'ran as a book is part of Islam as a religion, just as the Prophet (sws) is. Remove the Qu'ran and you have religion without revelation, remove the Prophet (sws) and you have Message without Messenger (sws) any of these points in turn invalidate the message. Which I believe was my point.

Rintrah wrote on Nov 17^th, 2008 at 9:22pm:

Quote: Legitimacy of the book as divine may be lost if there is nothing behind the words but book still would be here, e.g. the book of Darwin isn't claimed to be divine but it is still inspire majority of biology scientists. Probably nitpicking here but evolutionary theory has gone well beyond Darwin now. The entire point is that the Qu'ran as a book is part of Islam as a religion, just as the Prophet (sws) is. Remove the Qu'ran and you have religion without revelation, remove the Prophet (sws) and you have Message without Messenger (sws) any of these points in turn invalidate the message. Which I believe was my point.

If message is valid it does not need validation by attaching it to a prophet or anything else. The Truth shines in its own light though of course it may be expanded as happened with theory of evolution or classical physics of Newton.

One from Left field..

God wrote the 10 Commandments...  at least that is what Moses says.
(not a book i know)  ::)

Grendel wrote on Nov 17^th, 2008 at 9:36pm:

One from Left field.. God wrote the 10 Commandments...  at least that is what Moses says. (not a book i know)  ::)

Those commandments do make practical sense even without Moses as was proven by their inclusion(however edited to hide the origin) into atheistic "Code of Communism Builder" in USSR, which proofes my point.

It is disrespectful to use acronyms you do not expect your audience to understand.

yep and other terminology in another language...  but hey, we are just "dumb" infidels so that doesn't matter.

Grendel wrote on Nov 17^th, 2008 at 10:58pm:

yep and other terminology in another language...  but hey, we are just "dumb" infidels so that doesn't matter.

As you've been told a number of times, infidel is a latin term used by Christians to describe muslims. You know....'infidelity'...lack of faith.

mod: personal attack. let's leave the narky comments aside shall we

This is one of the more pertinent quotes from the guy:

"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."

The point is, Islam is now being questioned, anaylised, subjected to the same criticism as other religious or philosophical ideas. People can mount rearguard action, legislate against discussion in particular countries or forums but it is too late. For Islam to be anything other than a religion for the ignorant or the fanatic, it has to become reasonable. "Faith and reason" is not religion-specific, not just for Catholics or Christians or Jews.

Communication and the dissection and dissemination of news, of views and ideas are now uncontrollable by any Big Brother.

Muslim arguments must be able to stand up without the authority of the Koran because the authority of the Koran itself is questioned. The questioning is based on reasoning and the answer has to be on the same basis. That is a massive hallenge and Islam will either come through and be better for it or it will go the way of all other unreasonable belief systems.

If you don't read anything else on this between now and the next embassy burning, read this:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JK18Aa01.html



Kalisch is the first Muslim scholar to dispute the Prophet's existence, while continuing to profess Muslim. If the Prophet did not exist, or in any case did not dictate the Koran, "then it might be that the Koran was truly inspired by God, a great narration from God, but it was not dictated word for word from Allah to the Prophet", he told a German newspaper. A German Protestant who converted to Islam as a teenager in search of a religion of reason, Kalisch can live with an alternative of reading of Islam. Very few of the world's billion and a half Muslims can.


Islam cannot abide historical criticism of the sort that Judaism and Christianity have sustained for centuries. "Abie, if you're here, then who is that there in my bed?," responds the Jewish wife in the old joke when her husband catches her in delicto flagrante. No one can offer an alternative explanation for the unique persistence of the Jewish people after 30 documented centuries of Jewish life. "If Moses didn't exist," the Jews respond to skeptics, "then who brought us out of Egypt?" Told that perhaps they didn't come out of Egypt, the Jews will respond, "Then what are we doing here today?"

Yes it will be interesting to see how Islam fares in an age of enlightenment. For a religion apparently founded on it, it's followers spend an extraordinary amount of time trying to shut people up.