twisty symbol home

twisty symbol contacts

twisty symbol contribute

twisty symbol events

twisty symbol join

twisty symbol media

twisty symbol news

twisty symbol Scarborough's NDP

twisty symbol Ontario's NDP

twisty symbol Canada's NDP

Gods, myths prophets and prophecies

Toronto Star logore. Questioning of Prophet's existence stirs outcry

What was the point to Harpur's column? Muslim scholars don't stop questioning any more than any other religion's scholars do. However, like Harpur's reworking of Christianity in "The Pagan Christ", scholarly thinking doesn't always impact the religious mainstream. The American religious right still clings to their views about Christ and creation despite the lack of scholarly research.

What is disturbing is that Harpur never addresses the central issue of evidence for the non-existence of the Prophet (pbuh). Indeed, Mohammed's existence seems unquestionable. Unlike other religious leaders, including Jesus, there is a wealth of contemporary evidence for Mohammed.

Records exist for his entire life. His tomb in Medina lays beside his successors. The changes to the political and social structure in Arabia, including the change in the calendar, date to his time. One can more easily doubt the existence of European figures like Charlemagne or Charles Martel.

References to Mohammed exist in non-Islamic texts as well. And written copies of the Quran dating to not long after his death are also known. Then there is the Quran itself, which is stylistically different from other religious texts but shows signs of coming from different points in the Prophet's life - confirming the records which show it was revealed over time.

Christianity's Jesus and earlier figures of the Abrahamic faiths have little, if any, documented existence outside of a few manuscripts usually dating to a century or more after the lives of the people they mention. Mohammed was a leader of a nation as well as the founder of a new religion. In 14 centuries scholars from many religions have never questioned the physical existence of Mohammed because the evidence is overwhelming.

Harpur's reporting of Kalisch's musings are unworthy of a religious scholar. He should be talking about the evidence, not about a supposed controversy that isn't there. No one gives Kalisch any credence on this issue.

Gary Dale

Valid XHTML 1.1!